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

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>]

>>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:14:07 -0400, 
>>>>> Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> said:

> 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.

Just checking: is this an agreement or a disagreement on the proposed
text for rfc2462bis, or is this just an opinion on the (seemingly)
fixed constant of the IFID/prefix length?

In any event, the proposed text does not contain a hard-coded "64" and
does contain a note that an implementation should expect a different
length of IFIDs/prefixes than the one currently used.  So I guess you
can live with it.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

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