[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: IID length text
From:       Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter () gmail ! com>
Date:       2017-01-23 19:33:37
Message-ID: e5acd125-7d48-c9c1-9ac7-c8ff4da7c8a0 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 24/01/2017 04:36, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> the interface ID isn't really an ID any more.
>>
>> I suppose you can look at it that way too...but wouldn't that then mean
>> that you're essentially saying that you can have whatever amount of
>> suffix/node/host bits in an IPv6 address you'd like, but you're only
>> allowed to call it an  «IID » if it just so happens to be exactly 64 of
>> them? :-)
> 
> Isn't that how IPv6 is sometimes used in the real world? E.g. transit
> providers who insist on a non-64 bit mask on the transit links.
> 
> Anybody who believes that only /64 (and /127) is in use on interfaces
> in the real world is seriously deluded.

Indeed. But I think the point has been hammered home and I expect that
the draft will be wordsmithed accordingly before we see a new version.

   Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]