IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Autoconf] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-autoconf-addr-model-01

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 07 January 2010 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17D43A6853 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:32:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvpTR7IulDpn for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26FE3A6846 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 05:32:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o07DQ03N008442 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:26:00 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o07DVtmF112562 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:31:55 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o07DVtaO017441 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:31:55 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-244-248.mts.ibm.com [9.65.244.248]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id o07DVsFR017399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:31:55 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.12.5) with ESMTP id o07DVrk1017562; Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:31:54 -0500
Message-Id: <201001071331.o07DVrk1017562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org>
In-reply-to: <D2375F20-6EEF-4987-BEFE-876658767D54@thomasclausen.org>
References: <3A8500A3-A75A-49A8-B48C-EED53A17E722@computer.org> <201001051958.o05Jw3vF025489@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <D2375F20-6EEF-4987-BEFE-876658767D54@thomasclausen.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Heide Clausen <ietf@thomasclausen.org> message dated "Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:47:46 +0100."
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:31:53 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-autoconf-addr-model-01
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:32:08 -0000

> > I don't see a lot of difference between an IPv6 "on-link" prefix and
> > an IPv4 subnet prefix. It doesn't make sense to me that IPv6 and IPv4
> > are treated differently.
> >

> I believe that Dave Thaler mentioned that there in no definition of an  
> "on link prefix" for IPv4, and that this is the reason for the text  
> being thus different for v4 and v6.

It is more than the text being different. If the recommendation is
that in IPv4 you assign a /32 subnet prefix, than in IPv6 the
equivalent would be to set a /128 to the on-link prefix set.

Whether you call it a subnet prefix or on-link isn't the issue.

What I think doesn't make sense is to assign a prefix in IPv4 but say
not to do so for IPv6.

If that is in fact the intention, what is the technical justification?

Thomas

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email