IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Fri, 24 February 2017 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBC212948C; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:59:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CPmtm7snISwa; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp39.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.204.63]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8BD1294C6; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.235.234.125] (unknown [58.200.235.39]) by app1 (Coremail) with SMTP id CsxvpgAnLUVtoa9YcixcAg--.1596S2; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:58:55 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <58AF9C78.2000106@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:37:44 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2ymnLm9dUNL3doU9+vR0eMzGbr71HQybbibXq9rCObP3A@mail.gmail.com> <20170223220531.GU2367@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20170223220531.GU2367@Space.Net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CM-TRANSID: CsxvpgAnLUVtoa9YcixcAg--.1596S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjDUn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7v73 VFW2AGmfu7bjvjm3AaLaJ3UjIYCTnIWjp_UUU5h7k0a2IF6F4UM7kC6x804xWl14x267AK xVWUJVW8JwAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGw A2ocxC64kIII0Yj41l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1I6r4UM28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY 6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6F4UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2js IEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAK zVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx 8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JMxkIecxEwVAFwVW8JwCF04k20xvY0x0E wIxGrwC20s026c02F40E14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67 kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY 6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWUJVWrZr1UMI IF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UYxBIdaVF xhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x0UUjRlUUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ICUYRv1r5pqJErbRI4Hkcn-8fC0>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:59:01 -0000

Gert Doering 写道:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 07:42:21AM +1100, Mark Smith wrote:
>   
>> It can't be changed without invalidating all of the other RFCs that
>> have utilised 64 bit identifiers.
>>     
>
> Except for the few that explain how to use /126 or /127, right?
>   

+1, plus exceptions for the IPv4-translatable IPv6 address defined in 
RFC6052. I suggest just provide pointers to those RFCs in rfc4291bis. xing

> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email