Re: AW: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

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

On 13/01/2017 18:09, Karsten Thomann wrote:
> 
>   Originalnachricht  
> Von: Randy Bush
> Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 01:51
> An: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: IPv6 List; [e-mail]; Bob Hinden; [e-mail]; IETF
> Betreff: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
> 
>> RFC7421 (which is Informational) calls out RFC 6164 (not 6141!) as an exception.
>> To be precise it says:
>>
>> The de facto length of almost all IPv6 interface identifiers is
>> therefore 64 bits. The only documented exception is in [RFC6164],
>> which standardizes 127-bit prefixes for point-to-point links between
>> routers, among other things, to avoid a loop condition known as the
>> ping-pong problem.
>>
>> I would suggest adding a similar exception statement in 4291bis.
> 
>  just get rid of classful addressing. we went through this
> in the '90s.
> 
> ‎I can only support this, while /127 is a good exception for ptp links, it's still useless for small nets with 4-5 IPs like a network between routers and a Firewall cluster.

Please read RFC 7421. For example

   From an early stage, implementations and deployments of IPv6 assumed
   the /64 subnet length, even though routing was based on prefixes of
   any length.
   ...
   The main practical consequence of the existing specifications is that
   deployments in which longer subnet prefixes are used cannot make use
   of SLAAC-configured addresses and require either manually configured
   addresses or DHCPv6.

Nobody is trying to un-CIDRise IPv6. But the price of not applying the
/64 subnet size is that you lose automatic addressing. The 4291bis text
doesn't yet explain this clearly enough.

     Brian