[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)

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 at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si
Sent: 19 July 2011 14:17
To: ipv6-wg at 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