JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:46:29 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
I understand much discussion was about length of the IID.
But this is solely about the prefix, which could be shorter than 64.
Keep same IID length 64.
That's effectively the same thing - if you use a shorter prefix to
identify a on-link subnet, you effectively enlarge the IID.
Well no, I don't need to enlarge the IID. It is ok as it is.
In this sense - what do you think about an RA containing a 56bit prefix
and used by a Ethernet receiver using 64bit IID?
I'd think it simply breaks the standard, but I actually don't
understand the point of the question in the first place. Maybe you
want to explain what you're going to do with the additional 8bit
space, and then ask others what they think about it.
Well, nothing, do nothing with the additional 8bit space. Make it 0,
that's it.
Out of curiosity, btw, what's the implementation that uses a shorter
prefix (or more essentially in this context, a larger interface
identifier), and for what does it use the larger IFID space?
No, I didn't mean larger than 64bit IID. Same 64bit IID.
See above, it's effectively the same thing, and my question still
stands. If you want to call it a shorter prefix with the same length
of IID, that's fine. But my question would then be: what's the
implementation that uses a shorter prefix? For what does it use the
remaining space between the prefix and the IID?
It doesn't use it for anything. It is there just in order to put a
56bit prefix in the RA and the other end to auto-configure an address ok.
Why should I put a /64 in the RA when that link is adminsitratively
assigned a /56.
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
