Le 20/02/2017 à 19:32, David Farmer a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com
<mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Do you think it makes sense to cite RFC 7934 as well? There is text
in there that also justifies the 64 bit boundary.
I think a reference to RFC 7934 absolutely belong in the IPv6
Addressing Architecture,
I agree.
I read that RFC7934 again because a new errata points to an earlier
RFC1681 mentioning additional reasons for needing multiple IP addresses
per Host: e.g. a ppp Router.
I would appreciate if RFC4291bis considered the /64 limit too in light
of today's IoT Routers connecting to cellular operators. How would such
cellular IoT Router live with /64-everywhere of current cellular operators?
but it seems more appropriate in section 2.1, maybe the second
paragraph or even a new paragraph in that section.
Section 2.1 looks good to receive a reference for RFC7934.
Alex
-- =============================================== David Farmer
Email:farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu>
Networking &
Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone:
612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================