IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 28 July 2010 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C0D28C0F2 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, 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 3dJXof9Vcuu4 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C24A3A6986 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so4114577wyb.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=8Yg80WjcxBKEOmUuQzVnJyW0ySWcdgz/Mc8NXSMXVUE=; b=dNd9OQKbxB/4US5hMgUTzwbirHuQ1qbWjf2INbA4ynCecxZvnYCggIpd3xvWyDeRoD rW08vs7cQ0X3Ks4IyZ0k/dCVNah/hppLsU2wCGb7fgcqPBaikgn4VdMfjZLzv9TOEmHx vBx4meGzku1hwW/rF79Z22rURjDMDFR/DVt2w=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=MMhxHWW1wCFCeJ7/O6g9cF0AO/AHW54ilm6UOgPtnnIiaJsK/qnTwRgX4qisGTL/Yf /G63zCsSIKRWPhlClwdPGxVDEiEzIC2sItgUYGPeXbmddaThvoYheN+IZeD0A5ebptTO cbylnyDc8ToLNWxMkwTTUq9mut3j89bl5XYnU=
Received: by 10.227.27.197 with SMTP id j5mr9372473wbc.111.1280306384149; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-108-236.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w46sm3277835weq.43.2010.07.28.01.39.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C023A62FB@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:39:42 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5BBB057F-B17D-492D-AB6C-A47FABCBF62C@employees.org>
References: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C023A62FB@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com>
To: Hemant Singh <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:40:00 -0000

> I agree with Dave Thaler from yesterday’s discussion in 6man related to the /127 draft.  In the two router scenario for /127, each router is off-link to the other and then one has nothing to bother about for anycast address.  Folks are also encouraged to read the IPv6 Subnet Model RFC where off-link has been clarified  - RFC 5942.
>  
> So now is there anything left to specify for this /127 issue that needs to be described in draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p?

my view is entirely different.
the 64 bit boundary is a suggested policy and not normative. IPv6 is not classful.
two routers on a /127 are on-link to each other. two /128s would make them off-link.

a off-link node cannot make any assumption on the use of subnet-router anycast addresses, reserved anycast space or the validity of u/g bits.

I support adopting the draft as a working group item now.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email