Re: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:09:57 -0800,
Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:

> First off SLACC works just fine with any size prefix/interface ID.
> The protocol supports different sized prefixes/IIDs.   The purported
> issue relates to interface ID sizes.   These drafts appear to be
> confused about that.

+1.  Even the draft title has the confusion: "SLAAC with prefixes of
arbitrary length in PIO (Variable SLAAC) - A Problem Statement".
The SLAAC protocol itself as defined in RFC4862 already works with an
arbitrary prefix length.

Today's limitation, i.e., the interface identifier (and therefore the
prefix also) length used in SLAAC is always 64 bits in practice, just
comes from the addressing architecture (RFC4291) and IPv6-over-foo
standards (that are supposed to be consistent with the addressing
architecture).  If the "problem(s)" the authors see are this
limitation, the draft should target at the addressing architecture
and/or IPv6-over-foo specs, not SLAAC.  So, for example, the title
would have to be: "IPv6 subnet prefixes of arbitrary length - A
Problem Statement" or "Arbitrary Length Interface Identifiers - A
Problem Statement" (both "subnet prefix" and "interface identifier"
are a concept defined in the address architecture).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya