Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Jima wrote:

> On 1/7/2011 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are generally
> > a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME circumstances
> > in which they are either not necessary or insufficient.
> >
> > As a draft, it hasn't been through the full process and shouldn't be considered
> > to have the same weight as an RFC.
> >
> > While it intends to obsolete RFC-3177, it doesn't obsolete it yet and, indeed, may
> > never do so.
>
> Fully understood; I wasn't meaning to present it as irrefutable evidence that the /64 & /48 mindset is flawed, but as 
> a timely counterpoint to people expounding the virtues of 3177 without cautiously acknowledging that its 
> recommendations aren't necessarily for everyone.  I apologize if my intentions weren't terribly clear -- that may be 
> a good cue for me to go to bed.
>
>     Jima

I believe that the draft, even if it were to be adopted as is, does not intend to obsolete the /64, just the /48
recommendation in 3177.

Owen