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

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

On 05/06/2017 21:53, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Le 04/06/2017 à 13:05, Philip Homburg a écrit :
> [...]
>> Moving on to a network architecture point of view, when using pseudo
>>  random IIDs there will be a longest prefix that can be supported.
>> Lets say for the sake of argument we can support of /96.
>>
>> Then the effect will be that if in the future hosts support SLAAC
>> upto /96 then we are back at the same hard limit. We have just moved
>>  be boundary by 32 bits.
> 
> Similar worries were expressed.
> 
> However, as I read this draft it does not propose to substitute new hard 
> limit for old hard limit.  The proposal is leave it at 'n', i.e. a variable.
> 
> The optimistic evolution of this could be that in some IP-over-foo this 
> variable could be exceptionally /96 and largely over-ridden by a 
> backward compatible /64.
> 
> Maybe something could be written down that clarifies this is not a
> proposal to substitute new hard limit for old hard limit.

Alexandre,

I think that is what the draft says. Most of the discussion here has not
been about what the draft says, but about what operators who don't read
RFCs anyway might or might not do because they don't understand that IPv6
isn't IPv4+. That's an interesting discussion, but I wish people would
give it a relevant subject like "IPv6 isn't IPv4+".

  Brian