>>>
>>> The examples in my previous note sort of provided backing for my view that
>>> the MAP endpoint IPv6 prefix can be limited to a maximum of a /64, thus
>>> making the IID fully conformant both to RFC 4291 and to RFC 6052.
>>>
> ...
>
>>>
>>> I think limiting the prefix length to 64 bits is reasonable. Comments?
>>
>> I don't think that's reasonable.
>> and I don't see what it buys us, given that supporting prefix lengths longer
>> than 64 is simple.
>> IPv6 isn't classfull, there isn't anything magic with the 64 boundary. ;-)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>
> OK, then I agree with Rémi. Drop mention of prefixes greater than 64 bits
> long and leave it to the reader to judge whether RFC 4291 imposes a limit.
you want this removed:
<t>If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most
significant parts of the interface identifier is overwritten by the
prefix.</t>
I disagree. this is the only text in there suggesting to an implementor that
prefix lengths can be any value between 0-128.
Tom, Remi and I have stated our opinions. does anyone else have a view on the
matter?
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
