I believe the prefix length > 64 should be allowed. It is upto the operator to choose the prefix length of their choice.
On 1/28/13 8:59 AM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
