On 8/23/10 5:11 AM, 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. > > For the routers I am most familiar with (Juniper, Cisco), longer than > 64 bit netmasks have been configurable for many years. And such masks > are heavily used for provider backbone links. > > The IPv6 standards community can of course continue to pretend a belief > in universal 64 bit IIDs - thus ensuring that they are out of touch > with IPv6 reality...
I think it can be demonstrated that reality includes longer prefixes than /64. The document needs to be unequivocal about that fact. or more to the point that it is altering that specifications as they stand now. > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
