> From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > > In fact, RFC2461 is already pretty clear that such a prefix MUST be > ignored: > > If the sum of the prefix length and interface identifier length > does not equal 128 bits, the Prefix Information option MUST be > ignored. An implementation MAY wish to log a system management > (Section 5.5.3, bullet d).
Then, I suppose I will technically correct, if I just declare, that on my own ethernet at home I can have identifier length = 56, and announce prefix length = 72. It's local implementation issue. :-) > rfc2462bis will even make this point clearer, with an attempt of > clarifying the consistency between the address architecture RFC and > link-specific RFCs wrt the appropriate prefix length. Why do such limiting change? It only gives users more configuration options. I don't mind it being by default 64+64, but it does not need to be mandated. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
