> On May 12, 2015, at 09:07, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: >> ..... >> On the /64 boundary, I’d point you at RFC7421. > > > Well, I guess that's a nice document to point people to, if they're > unfamiliar with the history of IPv6 and the issues that have been raised. > I'll be sure to mention it if I run into someone who needs it, thanks!
I'd like to call you attention to the following paragraph from the end of section 2 of RFC7421; The remainder of this document describes arguments that have been made against the current fixed IID length and analyzes the effects of a possible change. However, the consensus of the IETF is that the benefits of keeping the length fixed at 64 bits and the practical difficulties of changing it outweigh the arguments for change. The point being that neither RIPE nor the other RIRs are the place to discuss changes to the IPv6 architecture. If you feel changes to the IPv6 architecture needed, you need to participate in discussions in the IETF v6ops and 6man working groups. It would have been helpful to have added your voice in the the discussion of the Why64 draft that became RFC 7421. There was a lively discussion, but the paragraph above accurately reflects the current consensus. Participation in the discussion at the IETF is really the only way to change that consensus. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email: [email protected] Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: +1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: +1-612-812-9952 ===============================================
