Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sat, 22 September 2012 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DCD21F8501 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZSWRZ7K+Tcr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870E221F84D7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (50-0-150-57.dsl.static.sonic.net [50.0.150.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8M0Siui091379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:28:45 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <505D063C.5000705@bogus.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:28:44 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/16.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
References: <1348211033.52674.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1348211033.52674.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: bob.hinden@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:28:48 -0000

On 9/21/12 12:03 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
>
>
>
> I suppose bodies like IETF all need to ensure that there are 
> definitive guidelines around addressing architectures so that future 
> implementations of procotol stacks and features donot overlap with 
> bits in the IPv6 address space that could potentially be used on p2p 
> inter-router links (i.e. there could be address assignments done based 
> on subnet prefixes longer than /64 on p2p links) and obviously if some 
> implementation in future uses the bits from that space, it would 
> become a big challenge for operators and their customers to re-address 
> their p2p inter-router links.
>
As an implementer you have to assume the existence of prefixes longer 
than /64 if not, loopback addresses which are /128s would not exist.

in point of fact regarding /127s we have.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164

which is about as authoritative as anything gets.