Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:11 PM, james woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 03:11, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
> to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
> is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.
>
>
> I don’t know how I can be more clear about this: I insist that general
> purpose host operating system developers should be expressly permitted to
> write code that declines to accept subnet prefixes of any length other than
> /64 on the grounds that these are not used in general IPv6 networking and
> the successor to RFC 4291 continues to say so.
>
>
it's totally possible that a 'general purpose host operating system
developer' may get a bug-report / feature-request from a customer in the
future (if they follow the above advice, i mean) that says: "Hey, I need to
configure my widget from foocom with a /96 prefix because 'reasons'" ...
which seems ok to me, the 2 folk can sort out their problem and move along.

that doesn't mean that the proposed text (now 180+ messages back) needs to
change though.
 -chris