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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 06/14/2018 10:24 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>     > Nick, while I agree with you, you are basically making Lorenzo's
>     point,
>     > this just degrades into a rehash of RFC4291-bis.>
>     > So, would someone from Lorenzo's camp please propose language that
>     > rationalizes RFC6164 with the 64-bit IIDs of RFC4291.
> 
>     Rationale: Folks realized that there are reasons for which you might do
>     LAP != 64. -- which is not a surprise, since the rationale for the
>     specific "64" value is simply "historical reasons".
> 
> 
> And proven simplicity, proven by other protocols developed in the 1980s,
> and deployed in the 1990s.
> 
> IPv4 was a terrible protocol to understand and deploy compared to IPX
> and AppleTalk. They just worked. (My first protocol was IPX, when
> leaning IPv4 the fundamental question I wondered was "Why is this so
> hard and complicated?" Then I taught it. That took 5 attempts before I
> fully felt happy with how I'd taught and explained IPv4 addressing - and
> that didn't even cover CIDR.)

People usually ask the same question about IPv6. Example: compare ARP +
DHCP with ND + combo(SLAAC/DHCPv6)

Besides, you don't *need* to use subnet sizes != 64. If you lie /64,
nobody will force you to do something else.


> Those 1980s protocols' usability, supportability and deployability
> levels are the ones I expect IPv6 to meet and exceed, not IPv4's.

With fixed length IID's, host willing to extend the network further and
further will be forced to do NAT.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492