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

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 8/17/17, 2:49 AM, "v6ops on behalf of DaeYoung KIM"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> Ah, I see. If you're asking whether you can use this technique to hand
>>out a /96 per host, then the answer is no. You can't use this technique
>>because this technique presumes the use of SLAAC, and SLAAC only works
>>with 64-bit prefixes (except for addresses in ::/3, which aren't
>>routable on the Internet).
>> 
>> If you're suggesting that SLAAC be changed to support non-64 bit
>>prefixes, that topic is out of scope for this document and this working
>>group
>
>As I know, SLAAC by itself doesn't impose restrictions on the IID length.
>It's Addr Arch (4291bis) that imposes it.
>
>Then, are all deployed SLLAC software hard-coded to 64 bits? If properly
>implemented, the IID length should remain a parameter that can be set by
>an admin.
>
>Should the latter be the case, my life would get easiest.

If you control the software and configuration on the network nodes and on
the host devices, you can run your network however you want to.
Interoperability with other networks is what matters, and I don’t think
it’s affected here.


>
>> If you're willing to use something other than SLAAC, such as DHCPv6,
>>then all you need is one /64 for your whole network and you can number
>>as many devices as you want.
>
>If not for SLAAC, this would certainly be my last option.

You can assign addresses on your network using whatever mechanism you
want. It sounds like other network operators and software engineers don’t
want to modify their systems to accommodate your requirement, but if you
don’t need their accommodation, you can build what you want.

Lee