Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

Eliot,

am Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 06:22:24PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> I asked the above question because it is at least conceivable that at
> some point host portion != 64 bits and this is the only place in the
> document where the requirement is stated.  Yes, screwing with the 64
> bit boundary today is bound to cause all sorts of breakage.  I'm not
> thinking of today but the future.  And yes, another argument would be
> that there isn't enough address space for this to be effectively
> private.  Those are two different issues, but fixing the boundary here
> reminds me of mistakes we made with IPv4 way back when.  In this day
> and age we're talking about a lot more cleanup later.
especially as there are already existing RFCs that are flexible in the
boundaries. Oddly RFC 4862 IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is
one of them (e.g., 5.3, the creation of the link-layer address), which
is pretty much fixed by implementations to operate at the 64 bit
boundary. Granted, that's mostly when dealing with Ethernet-based
infrastructures and the document does explain that the length of the
interface identifier depends on the link type (5.5.3 d).

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature