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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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
>