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

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

On 10/06/2017 00:45, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2017, at 13:24, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> At the time of this writing, we should probably be in the camp of "If
>> you do slaac, better stick to 64, since it's know to work with legacy
>> implementations, and besides, allows for sparse allocation (reduced
>> collisions of IIDs when you pick a random one, resistance to address
>> scans, etc.).
>>
>> There's no compelling technical argument for mandating /64 (i.e., such
>> specific value) if you do manual configuration or, for instance,
>> stateful DHCPv6. And the recommendation for /64 for slaac mostly has to
>> do with backwards compatibility than with anything else.
> 
> I think the term “manual configuration” for non-SLAAC cases is a little misleading. Many deployments, be they server deployments, or point-to-point link configurations, are likely to be increasingly automatically provisioned in some way; then there is no “manual” configuration per se. 

Yes. I think "static configuration" is closer to what is intended.
Even that isn't quite correct. Maybe it just has to be "non-SLAAC";
the fact that schemes like ILNP also split at the /64 boundary seems
to be mainly a coincidence.

    Brian