[lacnog] [SPAM]Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites WGLC

[Nicolás Ruiz]

Este es RFC que resultó de

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites

correcto? Hay alguna forma de saber que cambió entre una version del
draft y la edición final del RFC?

nicolas

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Arturo Servin <aservin en lacnic.net> wrote:
>
> Creo que este documento es importante compartir y escuchar opiniones.
> Saludos,
> .asn
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Fred Baker <fred en cisco.com>
> Date: 24 October 2010 16:00:46 GMT-02:00
> To: IPv6 operators forum <ipv6-ops en lists.cluenet.de>
> Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites WGLC
> Reply-To: v6ops en ietf.org
>
> The IETF IPv6 Operations Working Group is initiating a two week working
> group last call of
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites
>  "IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites", Thomas Narten, Geoff Huston,
>  Rosalea Roberts
>
> In essence, this is a change to the advice that the IETF gave the RIRs in
> RFC 3177. We had indicated at that time that we believed that allocating a
> /48 to each end site was important, for various reasons. We at this point
> believe that a better model allows the LIR to allocate diffrent length
> prefixes to their customers in accordance with the network's needs.
>
> If you find issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding
> additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to
> v6ops en ietf.org.
>
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document
> as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be
> of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
>