On 24 February 2017 at 06:00, Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > as it's currently worded, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis seems to prohibit > the implementation of any interface netmask != /64: > >> However, the Interface ID of >> all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value >> 000, is required to be 64 bits long. > The thing is this is not new text, it has been in RFC4291 for 11 years. c.f., 2.5.1. It can't be changed without invalidating all of the other RFCs that have utilised 64 bit identifiers. > This has substantial operational consequences in the ipv6 world because > if it's implemented as stated, it will cause production ipv6 networks to > break. Going by the millions of IPv6 deployments now, it has been implemented as stated. > > The ipv6 operational community may have opinions on the wisdom of > mandating new behaviour which would cause their networks to fall over, There is and should be no new behaviour in RFC4291bis, it is a tidy up to advance it along the standard track. > so it would probably be a good idea to notify v6ops@ietf about the > existence of this draft so that the folks over there get a look-in > before a consensus call is made. As far as I can tell, this notification > never happened. > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops