Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Fully agree, I know is not, up to a certain point, an IETF matter, but changes on this will impact in making wrong the text in many RIR documents, policies, etc. Do we really want to create that mess?

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>
Responder a: <rogerj@gmail.com>
Fecha: martes, 13 de junio de 2017, 11:03
Para: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

    On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM,  <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
    <snip>
    > To summarize:
    >  - There is no technical reason why SLAAC cannot be made ot work with arbitrary prefix lengths.
    >    (including very long prefixes, although it might take a while to find a non-duplicate if the addressing model
    >    moves from sparse to dense).
    >  - There is no technical reason to have a fixed IID length defined by data-link type.
    >  - Removing the constant from the addressing architecture will likely set these changes into motion.
    >    (i.e. I don't think a position where one wants to remove the 64 bit constant from 4291 and expect the 64 bit boundary
    >     to stay in IPv6 over foo is tenable.)
    >
    > If that's what we want. I believe we have to think quite hard about it and we need to consider the consequences quite hard.

    what none so far (I might have missed it), have said anything about is
    the policy side of IPv6 down the line if we start messing with the
    64bit constant. Can anyone summarize what else is based on the
    argument that 64bit is the LAN side of things?

    whatever we do here will have wide scale effects. You can disagree or
    disagree but why should let's say RIPE continue using /32 or /29's?
    That argument is based on the amount of /48's and /56... which again
    lead down to /64.

    next thing we know is the routing table. Sure call me crazy, but why
    should there be a /48 constant there when we've removed the constants
    everywhere else?

    -- 

    Roger Jorgensen
    rogerj@gmail.com / roger@jorgensen.no

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.