[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016, at 23:30, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > (Actually, it would not be ok, as »/64 or shorter« still prohibts use of /64 for e. g. WiFi. The proposal therefore should read »/63 or shorter« or »shorter than /64«, I think, or SLAAC is not an option anymore.)
> 
> You are misunderstanding. We're not talking about what you configure on
> your Wi-Fi, we're talking about what you delegate to third parties: the
> users of the Wi-Fi. Unless you assign a whole /64 to a single Wi-Fi user
> it's within the proposed policy.

... and this is where technical implementation comes and messes things
up....
If you are functioning in "subscriber management" mode, you equipment
may impose you that each subscriber has its own subnet for
interconnection (mine does) - obvious choice being a /64.
But being in "subscriber management" mode may not be the case for
somebody offering wifi on a non-commercial basis, but if it still is,
you may always try to use "longer than /64"  (??? /128 ???) subnet per
device.

I haven't tried to see if "longer than /64" works with my equipment,
since for me it's a non problem (I do assignments from PAs).

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN