>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Brian Dickson >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:18 PM >Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? >Being able to deploy something (IPv6) should be the central focus, not >making the thing being deployed more "clean". > >If the choice is fugly or not at all, the fugly choice must still prevail. > >Which means we need to accommodate schemes we don't like, don't advocate, >but which are a means to the desired end (IPv6 deployment, especially in a >dual-stack >world.)
Indeed, flexibility is a great thing to have (but not necessarily to use!). That is why the router vendors (should, and do AFAIK) allow you to configure arbitrary prefix lengths. That doesn't make it a good idea, but allows it when.it.is.needed. In that sort of almost-broken environment, sure have a field day - but always be sure the client understands the operational pain they are about to sign up for in many cases. /TJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
