Hello Juliusz and Brian, I agree with you both. The text is actually how it is because of strong opinions I received from others. IMO, 64 should be preferred as long as it does not harm the network (or in cases where it is obviously not necessary, such as point-to-point links).
Relaxing the « administrator » may be confusing, as Brian said. So I guess the MUST could become a SHOULD, which imply it requires implementers to fully understand the drawbacks of using non-64 prefix lengths. For instance, /127 could be automatically used (no need for administrator) if a link is auto-detected as point-to-point. - Pierre > >>> +10 on /128 support. > >> If you mean RFC6164, that would be a /127 prefix. > > I think Dave meant no on-link information, which unless I'm mistaken is > equivalent to putting a /128 on the interface. With explicitly scoped > link-local addresses, on-link information becomes a mere optimisation > (although an important one in the multihomed host case, where redirects > cannot cause you to switch interfaces). > >> " If the considered delegated prefix is an IPv6 prefix, and whenever >> there is at least one available prefix of length 64, a prefix of >> length 64 MUST be selected unless configured otherwise by an >> administrator. In case no prefix of length 64 would be available, a >> longer prefix MAY be selected." > > Well spotted, thanks. Markus, would you be open to relaxing the MUST, and > adding a guideline about which of the available /64s is suitable for carving > up? > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
