Le 27/05/2017 à 06:24, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
On 26 May 2017 13:24, "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
So the draft shouldn't assume a particular prefix length either. We
all know that it's usually 64 today, but that doesn't affect the
argument made by the draft.
It's always /64 for all addresses starting with binary 000, which
cannot be assigned to hosts in a real network because they are
unallocated space.
We need consistency with RFC 7608 (BCP 198).
No, we don't. RFC 7608 is about forwarding, not address assignment.
But forwarded packets reach assigned addresses.
Some situations can be unfortunate, such as forwarding a /65 to an
address containing a 64bit IID.
Consistency is desirable.
Alex
_______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops