Re: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a prefix option with prefix length > 64

To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a prefix option with prefix length > 64
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark at sun.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman at flarion.com>, ipv6 at ietf.org
In-reply-to: "Your message with ID" <y7vhdt9tkzy.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
List-help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark at sun.com>
Sender: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org

> I personally prefer "keep separating" for question A, and I prefer
> allowing any lengths (between 0 and 128) for the length of an
> "on-link" prefix.  

I have the same preferences.

  Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

References:
- Re: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a prefix option with prefix length > 64
  - From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉

Prev by Date: RFC 3769 on Requirements for IPv6 Prefix Delegation
Next by Date: RE: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server)
Previous by thread: Re: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a prefix option with prefix length > 64
Next by thread: RE: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a prefix option with prefix length > 64
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [rfc2461bis] Receiving a prefix option with prefix length > 64

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.