IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 27 November 2013 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10451ADF91 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:04:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j0VKD3Ib9a2y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80F61ACC91 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29E9880A7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (nat-gwifi.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B2513680DA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52962629.7020907@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:04:41 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00
References: <F681E049-43A2-4A61-8692-C59A1BF356A6@employees.org> <5296244E.3080004@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5296244E.3080004@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TaUIhIWvhKx04USbgfIkV5C8MUH1pWFWO"
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:04:49 -0000

Tom,

On 11/27/13 11:56 AM, Tom Taylor wrote:

> It is clear that
> some network operators rely on EIU-64-based IPv6 addresses for
> administrative purposes, as a carry-over from IPv4, and do not at
> present wish to modify their procedures.
> 

Could you elaborate on the above?  What procedures are they carrying
over from IPv4 WRT EUI-64-based addresses?

Regards,
Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email