Why do you think ND and SLAAC would behave differently in 4000::/3 ? GV> I know just like you it is farfetched, but why not? GV> it just takes somebody to rewrite all ND, SLAAC, DHCP, etc... :-) G/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: 19 July 2011 14:17 To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) On 7/19/11 1:44 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote:
I am not proposing a change with respect to existing RFCs; we must to live with existing /64 subnets as a minimum allocation.
My comments apply for future networks beyond the current 2000::/3 range used by all RIRs. Beyond this range all options are still open.
I don't think so. IPv6 as protocol applies over all ::/0, not only 2000::/3 Why do you think ND and SLAAC would behave differently in 4000::/3 ? Cheers, Jan