Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-06.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 27/06/2015 04:19, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> <[e-mail]> wrote:

...
>> And sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I would like the ability to
>> set up a router-router link with less than a full /64 allocated to it, at
>> least in the ad-hoc case.
> 
> +10 on /128 support.
> 
> I have way more p2p links than available 64s.

If you mean RFC6164, that would be a /127 prefix. But in any case /64 is not
sacred in IPv6. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-03
was just approved by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue.
Any prefix length must be possible, even if /64 is preferred.

Which is actually what the draft says, in slightly strange syntax:

"  If the considered delegated prefix is an IPv6 prefix, and whenever
   there is at least one available prefix of length 64, a prefix of
   length 64 MUST be selected unless configured otherwise by an
   administrator.  In case no prefix of length 64 would be available, a
   longer prefix MAY be selected."

I'm not sure about the words "by an administrator". With my autonomic
networking hat on, I feel that configuration might arise with no human
intervention. But in any case, even given that homenet wants to prefer
/64, any length must be allowed.

    Brian