IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question on anycast IID range(s)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 03 January 2019 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 2CFFD130EC2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:54:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_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 De121eUzrlSg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DABA1130EBC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F9FFFECBC74; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 15:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5858CBCCAAB; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 16:54:54 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: Question on anycast IID range(s)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABOxzu1O6qd_23xLgpAsx6BiZ09SCNUAgFurOL2UX4HQTvYFCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 16:54:54 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <15E0C4D1-DF36-46FE-B3C2-9B9C56D354CF@employees.org>
References: <CABOxzu1O6qd_23xLgpAsx6BiZ09SCNUAgFurOL2UX4HQTvYFCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2XJhqOW9-zlwV7P3om1KpY_lwn8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:54:58 -0000

Kerry,

> For practical purposes, particularly in light of RFC 7136, should one
> consider an anycast address to be any that ends in dfff:ffff:ffff:ff80-
> dfff:ffff:ffff:ffff OR ffff:ffff:ffff:ff80-ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff?
> 
> The phrase in RFC 2526 that's causing confusion for me is
> "Specifically, for IPv6 address types required to have to have
> [sic] 64-bit interface identifiers in EUI-64 format ..."  To my
> knowledge, there are address types that require a 64-bit IID,
> but it seems we've been systematically trying to deprecate
> *EUI-64 format* IIDs.  In any case, there's nothing to prevent a
> mix of EUI-64 or *other* format IIDs in the same subnet as far
> as I'm aware.

The main point of 2526 is:

   "Within each subnet, the highest 128 interface identifier values are
   reserved for assignment as subnet anycast addresses.”

Is that definition not unambigiuous?

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email