TJ wrote:
I speculate that one possible reason for this was to design a SLAAC
over Ethernet that is reliable, simple, universal and
straightforward to implement.
BINGO. And those are all (IMHO) Good Things.
Well yes, they're Good Things.
In a way, I see SLAAC to have become so popular as opposed to DHCP.
Were DHCPv6 more developed we wouldn't have this IID-64bit
problem, I
think.
We could debate how "popular" SLAAC is (many of those arguments, both
pro and con, are environment / deployment specific), but more
relevant - some DHCP implementations also assume a 64b IID.
I think I agree.
Which aspect is the cart and which is the horse could also be
debated, but the real point is - again - that this assumption has
been baked-in to so many things that changing it is (yes, still IMHO)
a Bad Thing.
Well of course, one wouldn't dare suggest changing such deeply
entrenched std and implementation, bar the deployed base.
However, one can't stop oneself express the strong frustration felt
about extending an IPv6 network. With all the great SLAAC features and
software availability - yet it's hard to extend a common IPv6 subnet:
one needs DHCPv6 prefix delegation be in place, or one needs to be
allocated a shorter than /64 prefix (e.g. be allocated a /56). These
are rare.
Thanks for the message, I'll go in listening mode :-)
Alex
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
