Re: dickson-v6man-new-autoconf

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Mark,

On 2007-10-22 02:24, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:22:08 +0200
> Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just noticed
> > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Dickson-lightning.pdf
> > and found some serious flaws and most likely misunderstandings in the
> > way that some things are presented in there. It was already publicly
> > presented at the NANOG meeting, so lets discuss ;)
> >
> > <insert humble mode disclaimer etc />
>
> Slide 2:
>
> "We canât fault the IETF -
> they arenât operators"
>
> Some of us are. 

I'd add that the more operators that care to participate in the
IETF, the better it will be for everybody.

I don't happen to agree with Brian Dickson's proposed change,
but I think it's important to discuss why he thinks it's
necessary from an operational viewpoint to permit such sparse
allocation of prefix bits.

   Brian Carpenter


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