RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? (was: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes)

["Dunn, Jeffrey H." <jdunn at mitre.org>]

Alex,

Could you elaborate on that statement?

Best Regards, 
  
Jeffrey Dunn 
Info Systems Eng., Lead 
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 10:00 AM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Jari Arkko; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Sherman, Kurt T.; Ron Bonica;
Steve_Eiserman at ao.uscourts.gov; Pasi Eronen;
draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon at tools.ietf.org; ralph.liguori at disa.mil;
night at nist.gov; dougm at nist.gov; V6ops Chairs; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
(was: v6ops-addcon and longer than 64 bit prefixes)

Hi,

Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
[...]
> My basic question is: What basic engineering problem is solved by
> proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

I don't know.  But I know what problems are solved by using 
longer-than-64bit prefixes, especially when autoconfiguring addresses 
with stateless method.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------