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

[Iván Arce <[e-mail]>]

Hello

El 2/3/17 a las 22:49, David Farmer escribió:
>  
> 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.  This is NOT RECOMMENDED, /64 subnets are RECOMMENDED
> and RFC6177 clearly RECOMMENDS sites be allow more than one /64 subnet.
>  
> 
>     > 3. IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits
> 
>     I thought this interminable last call was specifically because many
>     of us object to this idea. With those exceptions such as SLAAC on
>     Ethernet. Or maybe IIDs should not be longer than 64 bits?
> 
> 
> Variable length IIDs are a BIG CHANGE and it will break current code,
> I'm not sure that is a really good idea.

Is there data about that? Any specifics? Which/whose code?

What is the scope of the alleged problem?

A host OS implementor (OpenBSD) had said on this list that they will NOT
accept /64 as fixed prefix len mandated in a Internet Standard.

Some people on the list say allowing variable length prefix len will
"break existing running code" while others say the exact opposite. There
can't be a rational discussion about this without actual data.

An alternative is to drop the entire discussion on the basis of a
provable argument such as "it will break existing code" and move to a
discussion where arguments for and against are just analyzed in abstract
or where personal preferences, opinions and interests are stated as such.


-ivan

-- 
Iván Arce
Director del Programa STIC
Fundación Dr. Manuel Sadosky
http://www.fundacionsadosky.org.ar
TE: ([phone]
GPG fingerprint: 4D97 3003 76C9 9DA4 7209  7982 0A1D 10BE CEA9 1B6E