Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Address

Brian,

> > > Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would
> > > claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard.
> > Agreed.
> Of course. The point is only that it's a parameter in the design of SLAAC,
> whose value is set by the address architecture.
If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of SLAAC I 
believe you are wrong.
Can you provide any support for that view?

If I understand you correctly, your proposal is to change the fixed 64 bit 
Interface-ID length in IPv6 to a variable one, with an exception for links 
where SLAAC is used.

How do you practically suggest to do this, given the issues raised in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421#section-4.1 ?

Do you think this change is appropriate in the context of advancing 4291?

Do you have implementation reports and are there not interoperability problems 
here?

Best regards,
Ole

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP