Re: [dhcwg] Review request for draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id

Ted,

The prefix is NOT always 64. In principle, it can be 0 to 128, even the one assign to host. You can see this in ND prefix option as well: section 4.6.2 of RFC 2461.

I am afraid this have to be bitfields. Actually, RFC3633 has already done bitfields in DHCPv6, hasn't it?

Alex,

I don't see a reason why cannot it to be greater than 64. Looking at SLAAC, RFC2462, it only defined prefix length + interface id length should be equal to 128. The interface id is typically be 64-bit long, but it is NOT a MUST. In principle, it can be other length as well as far as I understand.

Best regards,

Sheng
________________________________________
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Ted Lemon [Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
Sent: 29 March 2012 21:53
To: Alexandru Petrescu; dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review request for draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id

> If not it should say so, and eventually encoding on 6bit instead of 8,
> maybe.

DHCP doesn't do bitfields.   However, I think that the width of the prefix is _always_ 64, so maybe we don't need to include a length at all?
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg