On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:40:01AM +0100, otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > There are many reasons for the 64 bit boundary. > - Allowing identifier locator split: 8+8 / GSE that led to ILNP and NPT66 Irrelevant. > - Simplicity in addressing (no more subnet masks) That seems an overly optimistic statement. > - A fair balance between the users and the providers of networks. > Ensure that users get a fair share of addresses and try to avoid > operators charging per address. IETF is not a product management committee. Regardless of what is fair or just or reasonable, vendors will charge for the strangest things. While I sympathize with the objective, I do not think this is the appropiate forum to achieve such a goal. Also, I think we here touching upon the very heart of the issue: some would like to force every link on this planet to have a routable /64 (for perhaps ideological reasons), and some don't (for perhaps operational reasons). I'm from the school of thought where unenforceable rules have no place in society. There already is precedent to abandon a classful addressing paradigm in favor of classless inter-domain routing. This implies that a the fixed 64 bit boundary is unattainable, as such, getting classless IPv6 is merely a matter of expending sufficient energy. > The 64 bit boundary is so embedded in the set of IPv6 specifications > that it would be very hard to unravel at this point. It certainly > cannot be a single paragraph put in during the advancement of 4291. > Write a draft. Or write a book on protocol politics and the > underlaying values reflected in the specifications... If this is the case, why proceed 4291bis while its content is contested? What purpose does that serve? By publishing 4291bis, one would add yet another referenceable source to legitimize the 64 bit boundary, which adds to the pile of things that need to be 'unraveled'. Perhaps the buck should stop here? > PS: With an implementor hat on, I write code that can deal with any prefix length. Excellent! Keep it up. Kind regards, Job