Gert Doering wrote:
Unless I'm totally mistaken this wording has been in "the appropriate
RFC" (4291?) since the beginning of time.
it has, but it was updated over the years by several other drafts which
proposed the use of other appropriate interface netmasks, including e.g.
rfcs 6164 and 7608. The importance of 7608 is that netmasks longer than
/64 have no relevance unless there are interface netmasks longer than /64.
But since nobody seemed to care for the last 14 years (3513 is
standard track, published April 2003), why should people or vendors
bother to follow RFC mandates now...?
If the IETF mandates something that's both unenforceable and which will
cause breakage if implemented, this makes the IETF look rather foolish.
Nick