Le 30 mars 2010 à 13:00, Mark Smith a écrit : > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:17:27 +0900 > Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >>> So, I really don't see why LAN segments *need* /64s either then. >> >> as the subject, but not the $subject, has changed, could you please >> remove me from the cc:s. thanks. > > > Apologies for that. Can we generalise the subject into non-64 bit > IIDs, as it also covers the /127 case, and nearly all the reasons for > non-/64s on LANs are the same as in the draft?
Indeed, all links on which there is need neither for IPv6 link-local addresses nor for neighbor discovery, have no reason to be limited to /64 link prefixes and 64-bit IIDs. Whether it is better to make directly the generic point, or do things in two phases is a matter for personal appreciation. What is important IMHO is that technical realities get understood by the community, and it seems we do agree. RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
