Re: Why /64 [was Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses]

["Bless, Roland (TM)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 26.10.2013 09:41, Tim Chown wrote:
>> OTOH, deprecating Modified EUI-64 is a local policy which is 
>> incrementally-deployable.
> 
> Well yes, there’s obviously a large deployed code base where /64 has
> been assumed. And changing that assumption may simply not be
> practical.
> 
> But… for example, some people who were concerned over the ND cache
> problem have run with /120 and DHCPv6. I’m not advocating that.
> Indeed the homenet arch text specifically mentions not using such
> “tricks" where the ISP only allocates one /64 to a home which
> requires multiple subnets.
> 
> I’m just suggesting it would be interesting to spend a little time to
> figure out where the /64 really is “burnt in” so that, if there were
> a desire to explore proposing a /80 or /96 or whatever for a future
> SLAAC, we would have a clearer idea of what the implications would
> be, and how/if an incremental progression to variable length SLAAC
> could be facilitated.

+1

Regards,
 Roland