Re: Extending a /64

[[e-mail]]

Hi Philip,

>>> You need
>>> 
>>> R-5: Preserve existing security solutions
>>> R-6: Preserve existing privacy solutions
>>> R-7: Preserve e2e transparency
>> 
>> Yes. Although I'm a little unsure what you think of regarding R-5?
> 
> One thing to consider, though I don't know how to formulate that as a
> requirement is that if we change the lenght of IIDs, does that render all
> devices that only support 64 bit IIDs obsolete?
> 
> I.e., should we make changes to IPv6 that render all currently conforming
> implementations obsolete?
> 
> Of course we can create a nice bit of operatial chaos if we make shorter IIDs
> an optional feature.
> 
> So the requirement should be something to the effect that a change to the
> IPv6 standard that affect all hosts requires use cases that cannot be
> solved without updating all hosts.

Right. Take the following solution:

 - there is no subnet prefix / on-link prefix.
 - hosts are assigned single addresses via DHCPv6

The whole concept of interface-id's then become quite abstract.
And you could argue that the concept of interface-id's only exist within the constraints of subnet-prefixes and SLAAC.

Is it a requirement that solutions support SLAAC (or current SLAAC)? I would argue no.

Best regards,
Ole