From 5f7ecf251a13ce4a1b95bfa36474df64eb79708f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Randy Bush Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:57:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] part of brian's comments --- draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml index 8f3a644..a0fa14e 100644 --- a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml +++ b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml @@ -66,14 +66,22 @@
+ - Link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, /124, /120, ... /64 - have been successfully deployed for many years. Having the formal - specification say otherwise risks potential mis-implementation by - the naive, resulting in operational disasters. + Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing + Architecture, , and the proposed changes in + with respect to allowed + maximum prefix lengths and the minimum host part on a link. + + In the meantime, link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, + /124, /120, ... /64 have been successfully deployed for many years. + Having the formal specification be unclear risks potential + mis-implementation by the naive, which coulf result in operational + disasters.
@@ -92,6 +100,13 @@ For historical reasons, when a prefix is needed on a link, barring other considerations, a /64 is traditional. + The length of the prefix identifier in Stateless Address + Configuration, is a parameter; its length + needs to be sufficient for effective randomization for privacy + reasons. For example, a /48 would be sufficient. But we recommend, + barring strong considerations to the contrary, using 64-bits in + order not to discover where 64-bits was hard-coded. +