Release 5.2 is now available

[bound@zk3.dec.com]

Bill,

>Hum.  A goal for some will be to move from one address format to another.
>As I understand, both types remain valid and ought to be accepted.
>The IPv4 analogy I might use here is:
>
>	"People must renumber all the hosts in the 1-126 range 
>	 and go to the 192 range since the 192 range has CIDR
>	 support and the 1-126 does not."
>
>Or is there something else going on here?

The 6bone is a test vehicle and we now have new agreed to specs for the
low order 64bits per IPv6 over foo (choose your flavor).  Bob Fink is
correct we should be testing the new specs.  If vendors have not
implemented them that is a problem.  It was my impression all had done
so at UNH but some may not have offered new kits out to users.  I know
we just updated our kit and it will also support a backwards
compatibility mode if there are nodes on the net that do not yet support
the new interface ID spec.  

I personally believe we should select a drop dead date when the old form
of IPv6 over Foo is no longer supported on the 6bone.  All nodes must do
the new specs and we can get rid of carrying around the backwards
compatibility mode in all implementations.

Bob I suggest you pick a date that we shoot for that is reasonable to
all ???

/jim