Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

[Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:29:42AM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
[...]
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 06:22:17PM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
[...]
> You're refering to 2.5.1 where it says
> 
>    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
>    000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
>    constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
> 
> I guess. I can't say I like this. I believe it's quite common in IPv6
> to use /128 for addresses on loopback interfaces on routers and inject
> those into IGP (just like IPv4 /32). If I understand this correctly,
> one would then be forced to use a different /64 for each router loopback.
> It's also pretty common to use a longer than 64 prefix for tunnels, e.g.
> /126.

Come to think of it, is there anything preventing using the last 64 bits
of an address as an IID when it is /126 (/128 or whatever >64)? On say a
tunnel with /126, you would then have 64 bit IIDs that are unique to the
link because the last 2 bits are unique to the link.

Stig