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

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

Just to be clear...
On 07/06/2017 11:24, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 19:48, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> The parameter's *current* value, yes. But should we really be fixing
>>> the value of the parameter once and for all in the addressing architecture?
>>> Why don't we fix it in each IPv6-over-foo, which is what the SLAAC design
>>> assumes?
>>>
>>
>> If that is the authors' goal, then what the draft should say is that the
>> IID length is 64 unless otherwise specified by an IPv6-over-foo layer.
> 
> As Ole quoted, it says:

I meant that it says this in a too complicated way,
not in those exact words.
 
> "Interface Identifiers should be 64 bit long except
> when the addresses are manually configured, or by exceptions defined
> in standards track documents."
> 
> Maybe there are too many other words?
> 
>> That is not what the draft says today.
> 
> The difference is the "manually configured" option. I don't see
> how we can forbid that.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>>
>> I also suspect it's not the authors' goal. At least Randy and Job have
>> clearly stated that what they want to do is run non-/64 prefixes on today's
>> links (Ethernet, maybe wifi), not on some future link layer.
>>