Hi > We have no right to require that the sites MUST use 64-bit prefixes.
Actually, we do have that right. Since the IETF sets Internet standards, we can write exactly what we want to. IETF standards are voluntary, so sites have the right to ignore them too. However, if they do that, they will not be able to interoperate with the Internet. An accurate sentence for the draft would therefore be [RFC4862] requires that subnets operating stateless address autoconfiguration use 64 bit prefixes, and [RFC4291] requires that interface identifiers conform to modified EUI-64 format. However, the draft does not explain why this is a problem. Since the Internet has only just run out of 24 bit prefixes, why is there a risk of running out of 64 bit prefixes? By the way, the proposed solution will not work with FireWire. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-03-02 14:21, huabing yu wrote: > Hi. > This is my draft, the link is > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-slaac-improvement/?include_text=1 > > Please give some advice.Thank you. > > Abstract > IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration described by RFC4862 only supports > 64-bit prefixes. This approach can't be deployed in the sites with prefixes > longer than 64. We have no right to require that the sites MUST use 64-bit > prefixes. This document tries to implement stateless address > autoconfiguration with prefixes longer than 64. > > Yu Hua bing > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
