RE: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound at hp.com>]

sure but breaking production code has to jump a higher bar regardless
and I am not convinced that all have come to good set of statements and
assumptions what those bits mean right now and I think that is prudent
before changing them. prefix delegation puts another and new variable in
the analysis I think now.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 12:40 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); dhcwg at ietf.org; Iljitsch van Beijnum; 
> ipv6 at ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RE: purpose of m/o bit
> 
> On May 27, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > ughh. sorry know of three production servers in use Lucent, HP, and
> > Linux version.
> >
> 
> That's not what I mean.   The point is that it's early days, and  
> updating servers isn't a hard problem.   My point is that I don't  
> know of any widespread deployments we'd be breaking right now, not  
> that there are no implementations.
> 
> 

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