On Sep 21, 2007, at 15:19, Brian Dickson wrote:
james woodyatt wrote:
Here's why I don't care what documents allow for prefixes lengths
over 64 bits: all that hardware and software already shipped to
customers that won't and can't use them.
Won't? Without modifications, sure, I agree there.
I think you miss my point. I don't care how easy it is to patch the
source code. What I can't do is force customers to upgrade all their
network nodes at once with new firmware and operating system software
before seeing any benefits of the new protocol. And what are these
benefits to the network user? Cheaper numbers from a supply that's
already astronomically large?
Go ahead and define a way to extend autoconf to support prefix
lengths over 64 bits. I'm just explaining why I likely-as-not won't
care. I don't see any real demand for it. I'm also pretty sure that
when there *is* a real demand for it, it will either be trivial to
do, or it will be extremely tough to do because of something you're
not foreseeing about the reasons why a standard /64 interface
identifier was thought to be an important design feature in the first
place, e.g. RFC 3041, SEND, et cetera.
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
