Hi Thomas, * Thomas Narten
> The document currently says: > > Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to- > point inter-router links. > > I fully support this. > > However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6 > continues to be based on CIDR. There is nothing special about the 64 > boundary from a routing perspective. This, I believe the above should > be changed to the following: > > Routers MUST support the assignment of arbitrary length prefixes > (including but not limited to /127s) on point-to-point inter-router > links. > > I do not see any reason to restrict implementations to only > supporting /127s prefixes. > > Thoughts? In particular, I'd like to hear from operators as to > whether they want the functionality of being able to assign subnets > of arbitrary length, or whether it would be sufficient to only > support /127s. I don't see that the draft forbids the use of any other prefix lengths, it just singles out /127 as the one that MUST be supported. That makes a lot of sense, as the (in my opinion) most important reason why the draft is needed is to close the ping-pong security hole, and /127 is the only prefix length that does that. So /127 is the important feature this drafts brings. Mandating support for other prefix lengths is, well, feature-creep. If it doesn't hurt or delay the process of standardising the /127 part, then sure, why not... On the other hand, if attempting to mandate support for other prefix lengths too results in baggage that makes it harder to get the core /127 feature standardised, I'm opposed. First things first. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
