Subject: RE: Review of"Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers ConsideredHarmful"

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:40:22 -0700

> Antonio Querubin wrote:
> Concur on both points.  Just because one can assign a /64 and get
> millions of addresses on a p2p link doesn't mean one should.
> Furthermore, I can understand the arguments for avoiding /127 or
> /128 but in the cases where the lost capability is a non-issue
> why bother forbidding even those 2 prefix lengths? 

The fact of the matter is that any prefix longer than /64 goes against
[ADDRARCH]

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:57:07 +0300 (EEST)

> The fact of the matter is that any prefix longer than /64 goes against

Sure .. but let's be pragmatic: people will use them anyway, no matter how 
forbidden they are.

I just try to point out which is should be avoided for their own good.

In any case, I think, as Robert Elz put it, this is going off track.  
Could we stop arguing about best prefix length?  I don't think people will 
get consensus on that, and it isn't the point.

I'm trying to come up with a wording that doesn't get us into an endless 
fight and a slippery slope.

I now have a new section:

--8<--
2. Scope of this Memo

   This memo does not advocate the use of long prefixes, but brings up
   problems for those that do want to use them, for one reason or
   another.

   Detailed discussion on what is the "right" solution is out of the
   scope; it is not the goal of this memo to try to find the "best"
   addressing solution for everyone.
--8<--

And a note at Solutions paragraph:

--8<--
         In addition to using a different prefix length, one could also
         use only link-local addresses or "two /128's".
--8<--
(usually they aren't really two /128's, but include stuff like static 
routes etc. -- I guess that's a good enough wording without going into 
detail; better wording anyone?).

The whole new proposed draft is at:

http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-04.txt

Is this ok?

Also note that this is and an *Informational* document, not even a BCP.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:25:45 +0700

Date:        Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:40:22 -0700
    From:        "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The fact of the matter is that any prefix longer than /64 goes against
  | [ADDRARCH]

But that spec has no business telling me how I use the addresses
assigned to me - I will use them as I see fit, and there's nothing
you can possibly do to prevent it.   Pretending you can is absurd.

kre