On 15/02/2017 22:31, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Brian, > >>>> Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would >>>> claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard. >>>> >>> >>> Agreed. >> >> Of course. The point is only that it's a parameter in the design of SLAAC, >> whose value is set by the address architecture. > > If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of SLAAC I believe you are wrong. > Can you provide any support for that view? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that SLAAC - by design - would work with any reasonable IID length, but we've chosen to fix it at 64. > If I understand you correctly, your proposal is to change the fixed 64 bit Interface-ID length in IPv6 to a variable one, with an exception for links where SLAAC is used. No. At least not in the foreseeable future. But we should allow for the fact that if prefixes between /64 and /127 are used, routing needs to just work. That's all. > How do you practically suggest to do this, given the issues raised in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421#section-4.1 ? I'm not suggesting any change to normal subnets, where all those issues apply. I can't see how /64 can be changed for them, without changing a great many things. > Do you think this change is appropriate in the context of advancing 4291? I don't think I have suggested text that would lead to a single instruction in running code being changed. Brian > Do you have implementation reports and are there not interoperability problems here? > > Best regards, > Ole > > >