On 27/06/2015 04:19, Dave Taht wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek > <[email protected]> wrote:
... >> And sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I would like the ability to >> set up a router-router link with less than a full /64 allocated to it, at >> least in the ad-hoc case. > > +10 on /128 support. > > I have way more p2p links than available 64s. If you mean RFC6164, that would be a /127 prefix. But in any case /64 is not sacred in IPv6. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-03 was just approved by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue. Any prefix length must be possible, even if /64 is preferred. Which is actually what the draft says, in slightly strange syntax: " If the considered delegated prefix is an IPv6 prefix, and whenever there is at least one available prefix of length 64, a prefix of length 64 MUST be selected unless configured otherwise by an administrator. In case no prefix of length 64 would be available, a longer prefix MAY be selected." I'm not sure about the words "by an administrator". With my autonomic networking hat on, I feel that configuration might arise with no human intervention. But in any case, even given that homenet wants to prefer /64, any length must be allowed. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
