At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:46:29 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand much discussion was about length of the IID. > > But this is solely about the prefix, which could be shorter than 64. > Keep same IID length 64. That's effectively the same thing - if you use a shorter prefix to identify a on-link subnet, you effectively enlarge the IID. > In this sense - what do you think about an RA containing a 56bit prefix > and used by a Ethernet receiver using 64bit IID? I'd think it simply breaks the standard, but I actually don't understand the point of the question in the first place. Maybe you want to explain what you're going to do with the additional 8bit space, and then ask others what they think about it. > > Out of curiosity, btw, what's the implementation that uses a shorter > > prefix (or more essentially in this context, a larger interface > > identifier), and for what does it use the larger IFID space? > > No, I didn't mean larger than 64bit IID. Same 64bit IID. See above, it's effectively the same thing, and my question still stands. If you want to call it a shorter prefix with the same length of IID, that's fine. But my question would then be: what's the implementation that uses a shorter prefix? For what does it use the remaining space between the prefix and the IID? --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
