On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 04:16 Ron Bonica, <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Folks, > > > > I am warming to the idea of fix-length, > I think fixed length or single size is always a good thing to aim for. RFC5505, although about host configuration, sums it up the benefits very well. "Anything that can be configured can be misconfigured. Section 3.8 of "Architectural Principles of the Internet" [RFC1958] states: "Avoid options and parameters whenever possible. Any options and parameters should be configured or negotiated dynamically rather than manually." 64-bit locators. Benefits follow: > > > > - There is no use-case for less specific (e.g., /56) locators > - It would make the FUNC part of the address appear in a predictable > location. This would facilitate ACLs that match on function. > > > > While you might save a IPv6 address space with more specific locators, the > savings might not be worth the administrative headache. > Agree. When people have a choice because they have a lot of address space such as in an RFC1918 addressed network, they'll commonly choose a single and simple fixed size e.g. universal IPv4 /24s for all links IPv4 for that reason. VLSM is fundamentally hard, Regards, Mark. > > > In this case, we should probably change the document to reflect > implemented behavior. > > > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
