Re: [Autoconf] new charter

"Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 27 February 2009 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 0ECB23A6C06 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:04:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.786
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
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 IKcQgcxVYMnA for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:04:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtpo-eml03.kpnxchange.com (cpsmtpo-eml03.KPNXCHANGE.COM [213.75.38.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257A83A6AFD for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.84.102]) by cpsmtpo-eml03.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:05:13 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([86.83.9.22]) by cpsmtp-eml102.kpnxchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:05:12 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <teco@inf-net.nl>
To: "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <499F0BA7.90501@piuha.net> <7E8A76F7-2CE0-463A-8EE8-8877C46B4715@gmail.com> <49A6D436.7020505@gmail.com> <000001c99845$1dc56190$595024b0$@nl> <49A6F125.40400@gmail.com> <1235680887.4585.5.camel@localhost> <49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A7BB89.5040807@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:05:12 +0100
Message-ID: <003901c998cb$42b71e90$c8255bb0$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmYw06Ce19OAyBdSmioactd0GcudwABwljw
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2009 11:05:12.0683 (UTC) FILETIME=[43031BB0:01C998CB]
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] new charter
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: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:04:56 -0000

Hi Alex,

Let's try to be accurate:

[skip]
|Sorry... in the picture above the addresses are also /128.  It was an
|abbreviation for me to show only 2001:db8:1::1/64 assigned to Host1.
|The full notation should have been 2001:db8:1::/64 prefix and
|2001:db8:1::1/128.  Would the following picture satisfy the need for
|/128 addresses?:

When prefix::/64 is assigned to a host, it configures a /64 address and not
an /128 address.
Routers may generate a /128 prefix-address, and advertize this in the
routing domain.
Some mechanisms should make sure the /128 routing prefix is unique, if
required. It is not required if the prefix is meant as anycast address,
routers may use "duplicate prefixes" if this is useful. I think anycast is
out-of-scope for [Autoconf], but we should be careful when specifying "MUST"
for prefix uniqueness. We should use "SHOULD" instead.

Teco.