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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 13/06/2017 à 11:03, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:29 PM,  <[e-mail]> 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.

Is RIPE agreeing that a cellular operator allocates a _single_ /64 per 
end-user?  Does RIPE understand the wide scale negative effects of such 
an agreement?

Alex

> 
> 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?
> 
> 
>