On 01/13/2017 12:55 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Randy,
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
to be clear, i have no problem with iids being 64-bit. my issue is with
unicast globals being classful in 2.4.4.
Randy I take your point, but this supposed conflict isn't new, it's not
introduced in 4291bis, it goes back to RFC3513.
i know; and i have pushed back every cm of the way. it took years to
get the other classful insanity, tls/nla, removed. the old cidr war
continues. this last bit of classfulness (excuse the word) too will
pass.
Do you have a suggestion how to change this within the context of
advancing this to Internet Standard?
yes. simply remove the mandatory requirement for classful global
unicast addresses.
I do see your point but I do not feel it is equivalent to classful
addressing in IPv4. i.e. Looking at the leading X bits does not
directly determine the IID length.
Isn't that the case for the address block we're currently employing? -
the IID is defined to be 64 bits.
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492