On 18/02/09 04:38 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Because the specification is written that way. From a pure technical point of view, we could have introduced a new rule, e.g., "if the length of a prefix with A=1 is less than 128 - length of IID, the host should continue configuring an address with the prefix and the IID, filling in the remaining bits with 0". My whole point is that it's not worth the time and process overhead to consider introducing such an additional extension at this stage without a strong reason, and 'we could do it, why not' is (IMO) way too weak a reason.
+1. In addition, nothing prevents a compliant router implementation from getting a P::/56 using DHCP-PD and zeroing out the next 0 bits in announcing a P::/64 on the pertinent link. This will achieve everything you want.
Cheers Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
