[IPv6]Re: Reclaiming fec0::/10 (I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-01.txt)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

Fred,

I still have concerns about whether a new scope is a good idea. But for
now, I'll ask a couple of questions;

   1. Will there be any need to use MANET local addresses URIs as IPv6
   literals? Currently, there is no way to put a Zone ID in an IPv6 Literal
   URI.
   2. Can a MANET host be part of more than one MANET zone? From the
   RFC4007 perspective, Zones other than Global have multiple instances.

Another possible issue with reusing fec0::/10 in RFC6724 is that it already
has its own label but has a precedence of 1, the lowest. Does that work for
your intended use? Yes, it can be changed, but it will take years to make
happen.

Thanks


On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:52 Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, a new draft version is now posted (-03) that addresses comments raised
> on the list;
>
> importantly, RFC5889 and RFC4007 are now also cited:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-mla/
>
>
>
> Please (re-)review and post further comments to the list.
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>