On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:11:04 +0200 (CEST) [email protected] wrote: > > These mechanisms are applicable to any type of link, would preserve the > > simplicity of universal 64 bit IIDs and the other benefits of them e.g. > > CGAs, as well as avoiding the ping-pong problem. > > IMHO, the "universality" of 64 bit IIDs went down the drain the moment > router vendors allowed longer than 64 bit netmasks to be configured. >
So how does that prevent those prefix lengths being changed to /64? > For the routers I am most familiar with (Juniper, Cisco), longer than > 64 bit netmasks have been configurable for many years. And such masks > are heavily used for provider backbone links. > As before, how does that prevent those prefix lengths being changed to /64? > The IPv6 standards community can of course continue to pretend a belief > in universal 64 bit IIDs - thus ensuring that they are out of touch > with IPv6 reality... > Maybe that's your reality, but it isn't everybody's. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
