RE: [rfc2462bis issue 281] Requirement for 64bit I/F ID

["Barany, Pete" <pbarany at qualcomm.com>]

I also brought this issue up several months ago and received no
follow-up. I agree that it is shortsighted.

- Pete

See e-mail directly below.

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-admin at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Barany, Pete
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:01 AM
To: Brian Haberman; Stephen Sprunk
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org
Subject: RE: Question about Interface ID length

More generally, I still don't see why there is a restriction on the
prefix length for all IPv6 unicast addresses where the first 3 MSBs are
other than 000. I could understand the wording in RFC 3513 (and RFC
3513bis) if the restriction was intended for "unicast addresses that are
configured via stateless address autoconfiguration" (thus my initial
comment about the need to update RFC 2462bis). But some operators may
want to use DHCPv6 (stateful address autoconfiguration) where there is
no concept of prefixes per se (just 128 bit addresses). Therefore, as an
example, if an operator wanted to have a /65 subnet(or some other subnet
where the prefix is greater than /64) (and I am not saying that this is
a good idea), at least the RFCs wouldn't prohibit it in the
present/future. It seems like an unnecessary/unwise limitation IMHO.

Regards,

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:14 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org; moore at cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: [rfc2462bis issue 281] Requirement for 64bit I/F ID

I am still of the belief that limiting the routing prefix to 64 bits is
a 
shortsighted design choice that will limit the lifetime and
applicability
of IPv6.  Anything we can do to discourage the notion that an interface
ID shall be 64 bits now and forever is, IMHO, a good idea.

Keith
 
> Architecturally, this appears to be the correct solution.
> 
> (I would expect a lot of protest at any proposal to *actually*
> deviate from 64 bits, but that is another discussion.)

-- 
--
Regime change 2004 - better late than never.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------