On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:55:48 -0400 Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> > 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. > Not necessarily. If I were to deploy /127s, I'd be allocating /64s to the links. > But that would be an operational item and not an standards body item? > This has been cross posted to v6ops. > - Jared -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
