Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I just want to state my opinion that whatever text we come up with should
reflect current operational reality, in that SLAAC A=1 only works on /64,
and that people use all kinds of subnet sizes when manually configuring
interfaces.
If current code doesn't treat 000::/3 in any special case, then documents
should reflect this.
Mandating /64 only for any IPv6 use case doesn't reflect reality as I see
it. I don't want to see A=1 /64 SLAAC requirement relaxed either.
I just want the -bis document to reflect what is currently in the field
and we know works. Nothing more, nothing less.
I wholly agree with this as it applies to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.
As a general comment, it should be reiterated that operational feedback
is critical to standards development and that if field deployment issues
are neglected, this damages the standards development process. It would
be unfortunate if this document fell prey to this folly.
Nick