>>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:34:12 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I am still of the belief that limiting the routing prefix to 64 bits is a
>> shortsighted design choice that will limit the lifetime and applicability
>> of IPv6. Anything we can do to discourage the notion that an interface
>> ID shall be 64 bits now and forever is, IMHO, a good idea.
> Just checking: is this an agreement or a disagreement on the proposed
> text for rfc2462bis, or is this just an opinion on the (seemingly)
> fixed constant of the IFID/prefix length?
> In any event, the proposed text does not contain a hard-coded "64" and
> does contain a note that an implementation should expect a different
> length of IFIDs/prefixes than the one currently used. So I guess you
> can live with it.
No responses...I interpreted the silence as a sort of agreement, and
I'm going to close this issue with the proposed text.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
