Release 5.2 is now available

[Bob Fink]

Jim,

At 2:11 PM -0700 9/2/97, bound@zk3.dec.com wrote:
>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 ???

I agree we need a date, but I'm concerned that we can't yet agree on one.
For one, there are lots of Suns on the 6bone, and I doubt we can agree on a
date until the Sun issue is resolved.


Bob