On 23/02/2017 13:41, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Nobody is saying that /64 isn't extremely widely used where it's >> appropriate to have a portable fixed length IID. Set the default >> at 64 and trust operators to change it where they need to. >> That's realistic. > > > As a host developer I strongly oppose that. It will make life easier for > network operators but make life harder for host OS developers, host > operators, and host users. I'm sorry, I'm wondering which word in my recent message that said "I'm not aware of any generally available running code that will be changed in even one instruction by the final text - that is indeed a requirement for advancement to Internet Standard." is hard to understand. We are not suggesting to change the /64 usage in all the hosts that need to use it. We are simply pointing out other nodes do and will behave differently. /64 is an interop requirement on links that use /64. It is not an interop requirement on links that don't use /64. RFC4291 is mistaken about this. Brian > > And it is absolutely inappropriate to change this now in given that the /64 > boundary has been the standard for the last 20 years. It will break > deployed code that relies on the current standard. (That includes concrete > code I can point to that I know runs on tens of millions of devices.) > That's not acceptable to do in a standard reclassification. >