Re: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: the race to the bottom problem

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

On 09-Nov-20 10:45, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote on 08/11/2020 21:35:
>> Just get 3GPP to change its /64 rule in accordance with RFC6177 and I
>> suspect that this entire problem will go away.
> 
> can we shine the light on the other side of this statement?
> 
> Is the IETF beholden to 3GPP to the extent that it feels hidebound to 
> maintain /64 as a generic autoconfiguration boundary for all ipv6 access 
> mechanisms in perpetuity?

That's the wrong question. It's 3GPP that created a problem. We are stuck with it, but that doesn't mean we should quietly concede.

During the RFC4291bis Wars I argued that we should separate the /64 boundary for SLAAC as a parameter, rather than as a constant in the addressing architecture. So no, not in perpetuity, especially if we move out of the 2000::/3 address space. However, the privacy arguments are fairly strong for not going beyond /80, I think, at any time in the future.

   Brian