Le 23/02/2017 à 09:17, Fernando Gont a écrit :
On 02/22/2017 09:41 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
Nobody is saying that /64 isn't extremely widely used where it's
appropriate to have a portable fixed length IID. Set the default at
64 and trust operators to change it where they need to. That's
realistic.
As a host developer I strongly oppose that. It will make life
easier for network operators but make life harder for host OS
developers, host operators, and host users.
And it is absolutely inappropriate to change this now in given that
the /64 boundary has been the standard for the last 20 years. It
will break deployed code that relies on the current standard. (That
includes concrete code I can point to that I know runs on tens of
millions of devices.) That's not acceptable to do in a standard
reclassification.
If the above will break your code, then your code is already broken.
Fix it.
There are a number of precise places that have been identified that
hardcode a 64 value, even places that have nothing to do with
SLAAC/Ethernet. Especially when it comes to size of a subnet prefix 'by
default'. Think DHCPv6 code, GUIs, CLIs, and more.
When trying to modify it some times the feedback is better dont, because
the RFCs tell 64 and 64 is a good number. Some people even say that
IPv6 is different than IPv4 because it has this 64 strong limit.
Alex
Thanks,