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

Randy, Karsten, Steinar,

> > PROPOSED:
> >
> >   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
> >   128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
> >   on inter-router point-to-point links.  However, the Interface ID of
> >   unicast addresses used for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
> >   [RFC4862] is required to be 64 bits long. The rationale for the 64
> >   bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
> i can live with this.
I presume the reason why you can live with it, is exactly because of the 
earlier pointed out loophole? :-)

You can't have it. At least not in this context. Write a draft.

See 7421, 6177, 7368, section 3.4.

There are many reasons for the 64 bit boundary.
  - Allowing identifier locator split: 8+8 / GSE that led to ILNP and NPT66
  - Simplicity in addressing (no more subnet masks)
  - A fair balance between the users and the providers of networks.
    Ensure that users get a fair share of addresses and try to avoid
    operators charging per address.

The 64 bit boundary is so embedded in the set of IPv6 specifications that it 
would be very hard to unravel at this point. It certainly cannot be a single 
paragraph put in during the advancement of 4291. Write a draft. Or write a book 
on protocol politics and the underlaying values reflected in the 
specifications...

Best regards,
Ole

PS: With an implementor hat on, I write code that can deal with any prefix 
length.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP