Hi Mark, > > *Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375. They > > have properly addressed the implication for using longer prefix than > > /64. > > > > So where is there reference to Appendix B.2 of RFC5375 in the /127 > draft? The draft does not mention anything about the 70/71 bit issue, > and that RFC5375, section B 2.4, discusses what to do about it. I happen > to be a contributor to that RFC, so I've read it at least twice, and > I've forgotten that it is there. What about the people who haven't read > it at all? (A reference to "B.2" isn't any good - when I first went to > that section I came across the B.2.2 text saying /127s shouldn't be used > - and that made me quite confused about what you've said above)
So except /127 :). Except /127, we support 3627 and 5375 regarding the analysis for the longer prefixes in general. (We're not specifically focusing on EUI addressing.) The section 4 of the current draft states this, but we'll clarify more. > RFC3627 effectively provides a minimum checklist of the implications > that need to be specifically addressed in the /127 draft for /127s to > be accepted. If the /127 draft was published as an RFC, it shouldn't be > possible for a reader, who's deciding whether to adopt /127s or not, > has read RFC3627, and is now reading the /127 RFC, to say "so what about > this issue identified in RFC3627?" To clarify and update the usage of /127 is the very reason of the /127 draft. Thank you for your comments, though! Miya -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
