randy/draft-classless6
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge pull request #6 from nickhilliard/master

Browse source 
clarify that the boundary is not removed, just the position of the boundary
This commit is contained in:
Randy Bush 2017-05-15 08:25:01 +09:00 • committed by GitHub
commit 613e02c951
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
View file

@ -37,8 +37,8 @@
<t>Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have been <t>Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have been
proposed, none of which has withstood the test of time. The last proposed, none of which has withstood the test of time. The last
remnant of IPv6 classful addressing is a rigid network interface remnant of IPv6 classful addressing is a rigid network interface
identifier boundary at /64. This document removes that boundary for identifier boundary at /64. This document removes the fixed position of
routing and interface addressing.</t> that boundary for interface addressing.</t>
</abstract> </abstract>
@ -66,8 +66,8 @@
Aggregation (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers <xref Aggregation (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers <xref
target="RFC2450"/>, but was obsoleted by <xref target="RFC3587"/>, leaving target="RFC2450"/>, but was obsoleted by <xref target="RFC3587"/>, leaving
a single remnant of classful addressing in IPv6: a rigid network a single remnant of classful addressing in IPv6: a rigid network
interface identifier boundary at /64. This document removes that interface identifier boundary at /64. This document removes the fixed
boundary for interface addressing.</t> position of that boundary for interface addressing.</t>
<t>Recent proposed changes to the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture <t>Recent proposed changes to the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
specification <xref target="RFC4291"/> have caused controversy. specification <xref target="RFC4291"/> have caused controversy.