On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:11:04 +0200 (CEST) > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > >>> These mechanisms are applicable to any type of link, would preserve the >>> simplicity of universal 64 bit IIDs and the other benefits of them e.g. >>> CGAs, as well as avoiding the ping-pong problem. >> >> IMHO, the "universality" of 64 bit IIDs went down the drain the moment >> router vendors allowed longer than 64 bit netmasks to be configured. >> > > So how does that prevent those prefix lengths being changed to /64?
Because you would then end up with overlapping address space that is unreachable in a production deployment. But that would be an operational item and not an standards body item? - Jared -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
