diff --git a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
index a386da8..5cd8c96 100644
--- a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
+++ b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
@@ -34,13 +34,11 @@
- Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have
- been proposed, with the most notable being Top-Level Aggregation
- (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers. They have all
- proved to be mistakes. The last remnant of classful addressing is
- a rigid network / interface identifier boundary at /64.
- This document removes that boundary as far as routing and addressing
- are concerned.
+ Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have been
+ proposed, none of which has withstood the test of time. The last
+ remnant of IPv6 classful addressing is a rigid network interface
+ identifier boundary at /64. This document removes that boundary for
+ routing and interface addressing.
@@ -63,26 +61,22 @@
- Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have
- been proposed, with the most notable being Top-Level Aggregation
- (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers; see, for
- example, . They have all proved to be
- mistakes. For example, TLA and NLA were obsoleted by . The last remnant of classful addressing is a
- rigid network / interface identifier boundary at /64.
- This document removes that boundary as far as routing and addressing
- are concerned.
+ Over the history of the IPv6 protocol, several classful addressing
+ models have been proposed. The most notable example recommended Top-Level
+ Aggregation (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers , but was obsoleted by , leaving
+ a single remnant of classful addressing in IPv6: a rigid network
+ interface identifier boundary at /64. This document removes that
+ boundary for interface addressing.
- Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing
- Architecture, , and the proposed changes in
- with respect to the
- minimum subnet size.
-
- Meanwhile, 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 naïve, which could result in operational
- disasters.
+ Recent proposed changes to the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
+ specification have caused controversy.
+ While link prefixes of varied lengths, e.g. /127, /126, /124,
+ /120, ... /64 have been successfully deployed for many years, glaring
+ mismatches between a formal specification and long-standing field
+ deployment practices are never wise, not least because of the strong
+ risk of mis-implementation, which can easily result in serious
+ operational problems.
@@ -92,15 +86,15 @@
addressing in IPv4 and why it was abolished . Of course, the acute need to conserve address
space that forced the adoption of classless addressing for IPv4 does
- not apply to IPv6; but the arguments for operational flexibility in
- address allocation remain compelling.
+ not apply to IPv6, but the arguments for operational flexibility in
+ address assignment remain compelling.
It is also assumed that the reader understands IPv6 , the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture , the proposed changes to RFC4291 and RFC2464
- , and the recent
- recommendations for the generation of stable Interface Identifiers
+ , and the IETF
+ recommendation for the generation of stable Interface Identifiers
.
- An important recent IPv6 development was that, for host computers
- on local area networks, the way in which interface identifiers were
- formed was no longer bound to layer 2 addresses (MACs) . Therefore their
- length, previously fixed at 64 bits , is in
- fact a variably-sized parameter as stated in .
+ For host computers on local area networks, generation of interface
+ identifiers is no longer necessarily bound to layer 2 addresses (MACs)
+ . Therefore their
+ length, previously fixed at 64 bits , is in fact
+ a variably-sized parameter as explicitly acknowledged in Section
+ 5.5.3(d) of which states:
+
+ Note that a future revision of the address architecture [RFC4291]
+ and a future link-type-specific document, which will still be
+ consistent with each other, could potentially allow for an
+ interface identifier of length other than the value defined in the
+ current documents. Thus, an implementation should not assume a
+ particular constant. Rather, it should expect any lengths of
+ interface identifiers.
+
+
+
-
To state it simply, IPv6 unicast subnetting is based on prefixes
@@ -187,7 +190,7 @@ rate is low enough.
- Assumming that nodes employ unpredictable interface identifiers
+ Assuming that nodes employ unpredictable interface identifiers
, the subnet size may have an impact on some
security and privacy properties of a network. Namely, the smaller
the subnet size, the more feasible it becomes to perform IPv6