RE: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[e-mail]>]

Randy and others,

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:25 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78


>not quite.  what kawamucho, maz, i, ... said was that we did not want
>vendors to break /127 on p2p links.  we did not enumerate how the
>vendors might do that.

This discussion has totally derailed from its main perspective.  If I
may please focus the discussion back.  As the subject of the email says,
this was a discussion related to the /127 document
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-02) presented
at the IETF 78.  Well, did folks get a chance to read this draft which
proposes normative changes to an existing RFC as follows.  The text is
snipped from section 6 of draft-kohno...


[The [RFC4291]is to be revised to allow longer prefix than /64, and
state that Subnet-router anycast address MUST be disabled if the prefix
length of the link is /127.]

I, and I think Dave Thaler too, are saying that the above text is not
acceptable because existing IPv6 RFCs can deal with the situation of
/127 configured and not invoking anycast data forwarding.  Since we said
no RFCs need to change, we had to get into router internals to explain
how so.  This discussion therefore has two paths forward.  Either the
authors of draft-kohno... remove this text from their document or we
continue to discuss why and how existing IETF RFC's take care of the
issue at hand.  Or a third choice is that the community doesn't care how
router internals work and also agree no RFCs need to change and then we
have closure to discuss any more internals. 

Hemant