Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-lap-00.txt

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:31 AM David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> So, would someone from Lorenzo's camp please propose language that
> rationalizes RFC6164 with the 64-bit IIDs of RFC4291.
>
> I'm tired of attempt after attemp being put forth and being told nope
> that's not it, it is time for you guys to put language on the table.
>

Several proposals were made. Off the top of my head, I believe those
included at least a) an exception for statically configured addresses b) an
exception to allow IPv6-over-foo documents to specify a different length
for the link type, and c) changing the "except for unicast addresses that
start with 000" to "except where otherwise stated by an IETF standard". My
recollection is that none of these went far enough to satisfy the other
camp so they weren't pursued.

The conclusion I took home from that is that the drive behind the proposals
to modify 4291bis actually has to do with people wanting to assign less
address space to users on existing link types, which if you ask me is just
going to create a race to the bottom.