%% You should probably cite draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-02 instead of this revision. @techreport{farmer-6man-routing-64-00, number = {draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-00}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farmer-6man-routing-64/00/}, author = {David Farmer}, title = {{IPv6 Routing and its Relationship the 64-bit Boundary in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture}}, pagetotal = 15, year = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.year' **, month = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date' **, day = ** No value found for 'doc.pub_date.day' **, abstract = {There is a common misconception that the IPv6 Addressing Architecture requires the use of only /64 subnet prefixes for subnet routing and on-link determination. This document clarifies the characterization of the relationship between IPv6 routing and the 64-bit boundary in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture, which is that of a recommendation for the use of /64 subnet prefixes for subnet routing and on-link determination in most circumstances, not a requirement for such. To further clarify the relationship, the document also provides operational guidance for the configuration of subnet prefixes and updates RFC 4291 accordingly.}, }