Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 19/08/2017 à 03:17, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> If the prefix length changes away from 64 bits it will be a major change 
> that will affect this document in many ways.

Change? there is no current spec currently requiring the prefix len to 
be 64Ș 4291 and 2464 talk IID len, not prefix len, right?

> I'd leave as is. It's definitely useful for the uninitiated reader to 
> know that currently the only prefix size that is valid and accepted by 
> implementations is 64.

64 could be a footnote(?)

SLAAC/Ethernet's also works with /48 delivered by ISP and filled-up to 
64 by subnetting.

"currently /64" - does it mean it is what this deployment does it now? 
In that case is it maybe INFORMATIONAL rather than BCP?

Alex

> 
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Fred Baker <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hat off...
> 
>     Why not simply say "a prefix"? We are perpetually wrapped around an
>     axle with the prefix length, but reading this 20 years from now
>     (which is the perspective one should take in writing an RFC - what
>     will it mean when it's history?) I don't see why they would worry
>     about the exact length someone wanted to assign within their own
>     boundaries.
> 
>      > On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > Le 18/08/2017 à 20:46, 神明達哉 a écrit :
>      >> At Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:50 +0200, Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>      > [...]
>      >> In any event, my point below was that as long as this draft
>     talks about a live practice using today's standards, it doesn't make
>     sense
>      >> to discuss whether the choice in those standards (i.e., 64-bit
>     IID) is good/bad in that context.
>      >
>      > I agree.
>      >
>      > Maybe the 64bit IID is not a matter of this draft, since this
>     draft is
>      > about prefixes.
>      >
>      > The IID length should be discussed in the other WG.
>      >
>      > Here, still it makes sense to allow for prefixes shorter than 64
>     (i.e.
>      > unique /63 prefix per Host, such that it can further grow the
>     network by
>      > becoming a Router).
>      >
>      > The draft says:
>      >> a Unique IPv6 prefix (currently a /64 prefix) and some flags.
>      >
>      > That "currently a /64" sounds as a hardcoded value.
>      >
>      > It should be something like: "a variable length whose value could
>     be /56 for example; it could also be /64".
>      >
>      > Alex
>      >
>      >> If we want to have that discussion that should take place
>     somewhere else (and not even appropriate for v6ops in general, since
>     changing that would be most likely to involve a protocol change). 
>     Especially so when such a discussion always leads to a non-productive
>      >> repetition of stating different opinions.
>      >>>> I'm not sure why we are talking about our favorite topic of
>     64-bit (or not) IIDs here:-)  This thread is even more inappropriate
>     for that topic than 4291bis (even where it's out
>      >>>> of scope as it's not feasible to change that as part of promoting
>      >>>> it to IS).  People who want to discuss the endless IID length
>      >>>> debate should really aware of the scope of the topic.
>      >> -- JINMEI, Tatuya
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > v6ops mailing list
>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
> 
>