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

["Manfredi, Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Philip Homburg

> Job,
>
> I'm curious what use you have for SLAAC with prefixes longer than /64.

By no means attempting to answer for Job, my answer is simple. SLAAC is a plug and play technique, and I see no reason why that plug and play technique cannot be applied to other than /64 networks. There's no reason to make non-/64 networks always an exception, only available for manual configuration, or even only available with this DHCP-PD that isn't much supported.

To expand a routed network at the edges easily, and allow subnetting in the expanded network, and allow plug and play operation in the expanded part, SLAAC should be one element of the solution. DHCP-PD recycles the same technique used in IPv4, and it's a good additional option, especially useful when the client addresses must be known to the network operator.

Given that variable length IID SLAAC is just not difficult to implement, in a graceful, backward-compatible manner, I can only conclude that opposition to it is opposition to allow for easily moving the 64-bit boundary.

> The most contentious point in draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
> is that it tries to change the IID length used for SLAAC.

That should hardly be contentious, on technical grounds, because the problem is not difficult to solve. It might be contentious only tangentially, in the sense that it makes variable prefix lengths so easy to contend with?

Bert