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

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

On 17/06/2017 11:33, Philip Homburg wrote:
>>>> The most contentious point in draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
>>>> is that it tries to change the IID length used for SLAAC.
>>
>> I find this allegation hard to reconcile with the following sentence
>> in the Recommendations section of the draft:
>>
>> "But operationally we recommend,
>> barring strong considerations to the contrary, using 64-bits for
>> SLAAC..."
> 
> The way I understand the draft, it tries to make the IID length purely
> a decision of the operator.
> 
> Operators are adviced to use 64 bits, but the draft tries to give operators
> the freedom to advertise a /120 and have the host use an 8 bit IID.
> 
> For obvious reasons, Lorenzo is not happy with that. I'm not happy with
> that either.
> 
> But what I find curious, is that as far as I know Job has no operational
> need for SLAAC. Mostly likely, Randy doesn't have an operational need for
> SLAAC either.
> 
> So why is this mixed in a single draft?

Because, I think, the word 'prefix' has three distinct aspects in
IPv6: a prefix used by a routing protocol, a prefix used by a
node to determine if another node is connected to the same link,
and a prefix used to construct the complete address of a node.
We have generally been a bit careless in distinguishing these
three aspects.

   Brian

> What prefix related issues are encoutered by people who operate core routers?
> That's a discussion that should be easy to solve.
> 
> On the other hand, there seems to be very little consensus on how to
> move forward with SLAAC.
> 
> 
>