ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

2017-02-22 23:58:43
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <
albert(_dot_)e(_dot_)manfredi(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com> wrote:

Help he understand, then. There is widely-deployed code that assumes
that the interface ID is 64 and does not work on anything other than
64 bit prefix lengths. Currently that code is correct on all unicast
space. If you change RFC 4291, won't that code be incorrect?

This shows precisely why it is urgent to update RFC 4291, to correct that
notion of a fixed IID, before it's too late to set things straight again.


Ok, so you're suggesting that we drop the attempt to reclassify RFC 4291,
and instead write a new document to update it? That's a possible course of
action. It would only result in your desired outcome if there was rough
consensus to change the boundary, but as I said before, I'm not going to
oppose that course of action.


   IPv6 unicast addresses are aggregatable with prefixes of arbitrary

   bit-length, similar to IPv4 addresses under Classless Inter-Domain
   Routing.

Important point. Arbitrary length. That does not mean 64 bits.


Nobody is disagreeing with that text. Please refer to the earlier
clarifications in this thread and the discussion in 6man that pointed out
that *routing* based on prefix lengths != 64 is independent from *interface
IDs* being required to be 64 bits long or not.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>