> First, let's have this discussion only in the 6MAN WG. The BEHAVE working > group is supposed to deal with the network rules that we have, not try to > change them. > > The opening of the can of worms lies in your statement, "on IPv6 links having > /64 subnet prefixes." We gained a lot of simplicity from having a simple > subnet+host format. There have been discussions in the past of changing that, > but these discussions always felled flat, since there is no obvious advantage > to subnet prefixes larger than 64 bits. More precisely, the justification > always seems to try avoid some administrative rule, but the rules are not > linked to the specific number 64. They derive from tensions between users and > providers, providers and regions, between providers themselves. Changing the > boundary would not reduce the tensions, merely displace them. I would expect > some very serious pushback. > > Once you accept that you have a fixed boundary, then you realize that reusing > an already existing allocation scheme is a very nice feature. The cost > appears to be 2 bits out of 64, leaving 62 bits for innovative schemes. More > than enough for any reasonable management system.
+1 Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
