On 10-Oct-21 00:39, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Brian, > >> Which means: 64 bits. > > Sorry but what is so magic about /64 here ?
It is mandated by the current IPv6 addressing architecture. Despite many discussions, there has never been consensus to change it. So if /64 is not the boundary between the routeable part and the host-specific part, it's not IPv6. Brian > > Is this coming from the longest routable IPv6 prefix ? Sort of analogy to /24 > in the IPv4 world ? Or something else ? > > I think LPM and CIDR techniques are pretty well established. > > Any fixed length of the address block with the meaning - do not use those > bits inter or intra domain for anything useful even if your prefix+node can > happily fit in /32 seems just dead wrong to me. And that is irrespective of > any SRv6 discussion. > > In my books if I get allocated say /48 or /40 from RIR what I do with the > remaining bits is my own business. > > Best, > R. > > > > > Sorry, but it is a little bit late – RFC 8986 is already published. > > "Locators are assigned consistent with IPv6 infrastructure allocation." > > Which means: 64 bits. > > I have no time to study compressed SIDs, but if they trample on the LOC they are not IPv6 addresses. > > Brian > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
