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

[Arturo Servin]

Nicolás,

	No te había entendido.

	Pensaba que querías las diferencias entre el RFC3177 y el RFC6177, no entre el draf del RFC y el RFC mismo.

	No creo que existan diferencias entre la ultima versión del draft (01) y el RFC. Hay herramientas para ver diferencias entre drafts, pero no he visto entre drafts y RFCs, quizá alguien más sepa.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites-01

	Lo único que se me ocurre es un diff manual.

Slds,
.as



On 29 Mar 2011, at 00:18, Nicolás Ruiz wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Arturo Servin <aservin en lacnic.net> wrote:
>> 
>>        Si, el RFC6177 es una actualización del 6177.
>> 
>>        La introducción del 6177 habla sobre los cambios y las diferencias en general entre ambos documentos.
> 
> Ya, es que yo lei el draft y queria saber si valia la pena volver a
> leer el rfc6177. por eso preguntaba si habia forma de ver los cambios
> entre el draft y el rfc
> 
>> 
>> Slds
>> -as
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 29 Mar 2011, at 00:00, Nicolás Ruiz wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LACNOG mailing list
>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LACNOG mailing list
>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>> 

------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20110329/b2f22fb7/attachment.html>