On 02/23/2017 05:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Fernando Gont
<fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
<mailto:fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com>> wrote:
[...]
But they do reflect reality. If you look at the whole Internet, think
there are probably 1000 /64 links for every /65-126 link deployed today.
Removing the fixed /64 boundary will cause way more than 0.1% of hosts -
which *correctly* implemented a fixed /64 IID - to become noncompliant.
The proposed fix is to stick to /64 for slaac, and make /64 the default
for other cases (while allowing the operator to override it).
If your comment above was made on the basis that hosts would be
non-compliant because some might not be able to e.g. be configured with
a longer-than-64 prefix, then... that's what usually happens as you
update a spec.
OTOH, if your point is that we cannot do that in the process of moving
this document to full standard, my take is that it's better and more
productive to get the document right, than to cast it into stone "no
matter what".
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492