On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit : > > Alex, > > > > While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I am > > very interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports non-64 > > bit IID. Do you have a reference for this implementation? Further, > > are you interested in supporting non-64 bit network prefixes? If so, > > let me know offline and we can discuss. > > Hi Jeff, this (non-rfc2464 IIDs) is possible for other reasons, but > hasn't been implemented. I'm happy interest is expressed. > > In the previous mail I meant to say typical 64bit Ethernet IIDs but > shorter prefix (shorter than 64bit, for example 56bit). This > implementation is what I meant I know exists. > > Why is this useful? BEcause it is easier to send RAs with a prefix > length that reflects the prefix length really assigned to that router. > Isn't a /64 big enough for all conceivable and practical subnets ? Some people want to make that longer because they consider it to be way too much! > Actually I'm very surprised to learn people seem to agree all Ethernet > links should have precisely 64bit prefixes in the RAs. > It's all links, not just Ethernet, because it's simpler to work with. If every subnet is a constant /64, then you never need to specify it, and nobody can ever make configuration errors. Variable length node addresses in IPv4 make sense because IPv4's address space is small and tight. With 128 bit IPv6 addresses, there isn't that issue, so operational simplicity becomes more important. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
