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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:50 +0200,
Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Anyway, isn't this thread about draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07?
>
> Is  draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07 free to use non-64
> prefixes per host?  Or must it use 64bit prefix per host?

As long as it uses SLAAC, the IID (and therefore the prefix for it)
must be 64 bit today, since there's no standard that specifies a
different value.  But I don't think that's the inherent limitation of
this practice; it's just a result of the limitation of the current
standard specs (in fact, it says '"currently" a /64 prefix in Section
4).

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.  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