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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

> 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 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.

The text doesn't explicitly prevent it, but in practice there is no other width that is allowed.   The prefix can't really be wider than 64 bits, and can't really be narrower.   I'd be curious to hear if you know of some concrete example to the contrary, but it's my understanding that this is pretty much written in stone.

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

No, prefix length is 8 bits in RFC3633.