That RFC describes motivations for /64 that are mostly superseded. I still
think we need to wean ourselves of the quasi-stateful address notion, in IPv6,
at least for the remaining majority of the address space.
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 03:24
To: Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; IETF-Discussion Discussion
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6
Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Dear Randy,
If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of
SLAAC I believe you are wrong.
cite, please. what else actually needs it?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421
Best regards,
Ole