[188043] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV6 planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tore Anderson)
Sun Mar 6 07:12:18 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 13:10:09 +0100
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAAeewD8C8Qz_pHiki0p14Q43WbJV81kHntGGZQgmL+TOfQ4Hog@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* Saku Ytti
> Yes, SLAAC, 4862 clearly does not forbid it, and there is no
> technical reason. But as you state, 2464 does not specify other
> behaviour. Writing new draft which specifies behaviour for arbitrary
> size wouldn't be a challenge, marketing it might be.
FYI: RFC 7421 is an in-depth discussion of the fixed 64-bit boundary.
Tore
