Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

If we keep the self-genereated IID length at 64 bits, then folks can 
work otu different methods for making use of it, and see what the value is.
if we say taht the length is defined by something the network, then we 
need to work out what we have to tell people to make that safe to do. 
We also restrict people's ability to innovate in the host stack (which 
is where, as I understand it, we want to see innovation.)

If we were short of bits, sure, freeing up bits might make sense.  But 
why do so in the absence of such a shortage?

Yours,
Joel

On 7/12/17 9:47 AM, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> This is not recognising that there are more than operational or functional properties of addresses. They have privacy and security properties too.
> 
> Shouldn't this requirement be separate from the underlying protocol requirements ?
> 
> Ignoring LL addresses, it seems that only self assigned addresses using deprecated methods (ie based on hardware address) actually *require* a 64 bit split. So on that basis, the standard defining how the protocols work should require implementations to support an arbitrary split.
> 
> Separate to that (in a separate section), make recommendations (as in "should") to support security and privacy.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>