On 24 February 2017 at 06:00, Nick Hilliard <nick(_at_)foobar(_dot_)org> wrote:
as it's currently worded, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis seems to prohibit
the implementation of any interface netmask != /64:
However, the Interface ID of
all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
000, is required to be 64 bits long.
The thing is this is not new text, it has been in RFC4291 for 11
years. c.f., 2.5.1.
It can't be changed without invalidating all of the other RFCs that
have utilised 64 bit identifiers.
This has substantial operational consequences in the ipv6 world because
if it's implemented as stated, it will cause production ipv6 networks to
break.
Going by the millions of IPv6 deployments now, it has been implemented
as stated.
The ipv6 operational community may have opinions on the wisdom of
mandating new behaviour which would cause their networks to fall over,
There is and should be no new behaviour in RFC4291bis, it is a tidy up
to advance it along the standard track.
so it would probably be a good idea to notify v6ops@ietf about the
existence of this draft so that the folks over there get a look-in
before a consensus call is made. As far as I can tell, this notification
never happened.
Nick
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops