[188046] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV6 planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Baldur Norddahl)
Sun Mar 6 20:57:49 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1457267989.5152.23.camel@biplane.com.au>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 02:57:44 +0100
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Den 6. mar. 2016 13.41 skrev "Karl Auer" <kauer@biplane.com.au>:
> Dunno about "harsh", but RFC 2464, section 4 says that the prefix must
> be 64 bits. By (extremely strong) implication, a host must not use a
> prefix of any other length to perform SLAAC. I say "extremely strong"
> because the entire description of how an IPv6 Ethernet interface
> identifier is formed depends on it being composed of the prefix plus an
> EUI-64 identifier. Later RFCs firm up the requirement and apply it in
> other contexts.
But the most popular OS (Windows) completely ignores all of that and makes
up an identifier not based on EUI-64. Everyone are happy anyway. The RFC
should have let identifier selection as an implementation detail as the
risk of collision is almost non existent given a sufficient random
selection and we have duplicate address detection as a safeguard.
Regards
Baldur
