Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol,

> > Leaving the text open to interpretation would make a mockery of
> > promoting it to Standard.
> agree.  but v6 specs seem to like wussing out and leaving the
> opportunity to do wrong things.  i'll bet you a reuben at the corned
> beef factory in chicago that the next try at the addressing architecture
> still does not *unambiguously* state cidr except for slaac.
we're striving to write specifications that ensure interoperability.

is rewriting addresses permitted by the IPv6 architecture?
the intent of the authors were certainly clear, but we still have IPv6 NAT and 
NPT66.

does 2460 permit 5-tuple based ECMP? clearly not, but we also have to accept 
reality sometimes.

if you aren't happy with my biases please provide your own.

Best regards,
Ole

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP