RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?

["TJ" <trejrco at gmail.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Brian Dickson
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:18 PM
>Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
>Being able to deploy something (IPv6) should be the central focus, not
>making the thing being deployed more "clean".
>
>If the choice is fugly or not at all, the fugly choice must still prevail.
>
>Which means we need to accommodate schemes we don't like, don't advocate,
>but which are a means to the desired end (IPv6 deployment, especially in a
>dual-stack
>world.)


Indeed, flexibility is a great thing to have (but not necessarily to use!).
That is why the router vendors (should, and do AFAIK) allow you to configure
arbitrary prefix lengths.
That doesn't make it a good idea, but allows it when.it.is.needed.
In that sort of almost-broken environment, sure have a field day - but
always be sure the client understands the operational pain they are about to
sign up for in many cases.


/TJ

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