Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:04:11AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> For enduser deployment picking 'something' (/64 is perfectly fine) is
> totally sane, and already in the proposed text. The sticking point isn't so
> much: "ipv6 is ipv4 with  more bits" (which the network treats it as) but:
> "hey, we know we allocate longer prefixes all the time for 'reasons' on
> things that have bespoke config, let's not make that harder by letting
> vendors/etc take shortcuts... acknowledge the fact that we really do have
> interfaces with >/64 deployed.

+1

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]