Re: RFC 7421 on Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing

Hello 6man,

I have a comment with respect to this RFC.

Should its content mean anything in particular to the designers of new 
IP-over-foo methods?  Not the existing IP/foo documents, but new ones.

New links come out regularly in recent years, featuring different L2 
addressing schemes, multicast capabilities, etc.

Should new IP-over-foo documents continue with the 64bit boundary 
(notable the IID length in SLAAC)?  Or should they be flexible in that 
respect?

For example, IPv6-over-802.11p uses IID length 64, although its MAC 
address is 48bit.  My suggestion is to allow the IID of this to be 
variable length.

This suggestion is based on the earlier discussion around this why64 
RFC, where I noticed that some people proposed to continue with the 
64bit limit, whereas others proposed flexibility.

What do you think?

Alex

Le 14/01/2015 23:43, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org a écrit :
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>
>          RFC 7421
>
>          Title:      Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary
>                      in IPv6 Addressing
>          Author:     B. Carpenter, Ed.,
>                      T. Chown, F. Gont,
>                      S. Jiang, A. Petrescu,
>                      A. Yourtchenko
>          Status:     Informational
>          Stream:     IETF
>          Date:       January 2015
>          Mailbox:    brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com,
>                      tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk,
>                      fgont@si6networks.com,
>                      jiangsheng@huawei.com,
>                      alexandru.petrescu@cea.fr,
>                      ayourtch@cisco.com
>          Pages:      24
>          Characters: 60469
>          Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
>
>          I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-6man-why64-08.txt
>
>          URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7421
>
> The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the
> prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier
> used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet.
> Currently, the interface identifier is defined as 64 bits long for
> almost every case, leaving 64 bits for the subnet prefix.  This
> document describes the advantages of this fixed boundary and analyzes
> the issues that would be involved in treating it as a variable
> boundary.
>
> This document is a product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
>
>
> INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
> It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
> this memo is unlimited.
>
> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>    https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
>
> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html
>
> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
> unlimited distribution.
>
>
> The RFC Editor Team
> Association Management Solutions, LLC
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>