In your previous mail you wrote:
It's an odd feature of that RFC that it's published as Informational rather then Proposed Standard, and the only reference to the RFC 2119 terms "MUST", "MUST NOT" etc. is in the Introduction. It specifically does not say:
"Interface IDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in IEEE EUI-64 format [EUI64]."
Thanks for pointing that out. => oh the bad faith! So we're not violating established internet standards here (by using /124s) and we're not going to end in network hell. At least not due to this :-) => you are violating established internet standard... which is *really* handy for quick and painless address management. Doing that with a /64 per link (putting router-id and link number further to the left) means "waste a /32", which is certainly not compatible with the current RIPE policies... => you have the whole freedom on 63 bits of the interface ID. I don't understand your argument. Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr