Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 03/03/2017 à 03:05, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
> From: David Farmer [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
>>> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. And I think there are actually two things to say here:
>>>
>>> 3.1. Any IPv6-over-foo spec must specify a recommended IID
>>> length. 3.2. In the absence of such a spec, the recommended IID
>>> length is 64 bits.
>>>
>>> Again, that breaks no running code, and it respects the
>>> architectural statement that prefix_length + IID_length == 128,
>>> and the use of CIDR routing and variable-length subnet masks.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> I'd be fine with that, but others seem to feel otherwise. Lorenzo
>> and James?
>
> That's why it's called "consensus." As opposed to unanimity.
>
>> However, if a provider only delegates a /64, this new text ensures
>> that prefix could be further subnetted down below /64 using manual
>> config or possibly DHCPv6.

[I miss the original mail from David Farmer saying the above, in the
conversation with Brian and Albert, so I reply here.]

I agree, but that excludes the use of dear SLAAC/Ethernet (it requires
it to be manual config or possibly DHCPv6).

Or otherwise improve RFC2464 to accept other-than-64 IIDs.  Do you think
there could be a proposal of updating 2464 with acceptance of
other-than-64 IIDs?

Alex

>
> Exactly. So, how can we allow RFC 4291 bis to say that 64-bit IIDs
> are REQUIRED? We can't. That was my original point.
>
> Bert
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>