Local-Use IPv4/IPv6 Translation Prefix
RFC 8215

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Suresh Krishnan) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2017-06-21)
No email
send info
Thanks for rapidly addressing my DISCUSS point.

Warren Kumari Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Comment (2017-06-21)
No email
send info
Like Suresh, I really appreciated the discussion of rationale in section 4. There is one possibility that I'm surprised is not discussed; namely, allocating 64:ff9b::/48 for this purpose, with the subset of addresses in 64:ff9b::/96 being *additionally* subject to the restrictions of RFC 6052. This would seem to have the advantages of:

- Complete address adjacency without the disadvantages of using 64:ff9a:ffff::/48
- Sharing an even longer prefix (48 bits) than the 31-bit and 47-bit prefixes discussed in the document
- Eliminating the caveat described in the final paragraph of section 5 entirely

This is obvious enough that it had to be considered and rejected by the WG; including the rationale for rejecting it seems appropriate here.