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

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>>> The most contentious point in draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
>>> is that it tries to change the IID length used for SLAAC.
>
>I find this allegation hard to reconcile with the following sentence
>in the Recommendations section of the draft:
>
>"But operationally we recommend,
>barring strong considerations to the contrary, using 64-bits for
>SLAAC..."

The way I understand the draft, it tries to make the IID length purely
a decision of the operator.

Operators are adviced to use 64 bits, but the draft tries to give operators
the freedom to advertise a /120 and have the host use an 8 bit IID.

For obvious reasons, Lorenzo is not happy with that. I'm not happy with
that either.

But what I find curious, is that as far as I know Job has no operational
need for SLAAC. Mostly likely, Randy doesn't have an operational need for
SLAAC either.

So why is this mixed in a single draft?

What prefix related issues are encoutered by people who operate core routers?
That's a discussion that should be easy to solve.

On the other hand, there seems to be very little consensus on how to
move forward with SLAAC.