On 30/06/2015 04:06, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Markus Stenberg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 26.6.2015 18.41, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
>> Even implementation isn't limited to it.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I am not sure about the draft text about what it should say, as non-/64
>> seems to be a political hot potato (there are drafts on this too), but at
>> least the implementation isn't limited to this (given configuration) and the
>> draft allows for it as well (given configuration). The default of /64 seems
>> still sane to me though, given no configuration.
>
> Regardless of whatever politics of artificial scarcity aligned to
> wasting 64 bits,
> 128s are inevitable.
Yes. My point is only that the *protocol* should allow any length, in accordance
with the IPv6 architecture. The default settings should correspond to reality.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
