IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750CE1A042D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Vmo6yPpFt_94 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.96.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7761A02F8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s2HHjjXj014317 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:45:45 -0500
Received: from XCH-PHX-307.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-307.sw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.32]) by stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id s2HHji4b014308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:45:45 -0500
Received: from XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.193]) by XCH-PHX-307.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.2.106]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:45:44 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: RE: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64
Thread-Topic: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64
Thread-Index: AQHPQbpA07SeWnVUzk25PR+X590CIJrljQnw
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:45:44 +0000
Message-ID: <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E4C92@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <9734C3A6-2678-4B50-98BD-21767420B9A4@gmail.com> <20140313.213538.41718510.sthaug@nethelp.no> <1BDB0240-28C8-41D7-B8EF-B7F26E9A036D@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E2017@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <A4C13F60-1EA5-41D2-B6D4-51C10EAFD3A9@gmail.com> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E4240@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <1394766011.25163.77.camel@tachyon.blake> <021E64FECA7E5A4699562F4E66716481189E44E5@XCH-PHX-503.sw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr2VZ6WzAXg1VRtgtpxxX+JQomxv8w3VhGidq8jvZOK3bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2VZ6WzAXg1VRtgtpxxX+JQomxv8w3VhGidq8jvZOK3bw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4-WT-h-NOOAfJXqb6tALGLnFRP0
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:45:56 -0000

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com] 

>> I didn't miss that. People seem to be reading this clause backwards.
>>
>> I'm saying that "those that start with binary value 000" are the vast
>> majority of potential IPv6 global unicast addresses.

> No, the way to read it is exactly the way it's written: for *all*
> unicast addresses, except those that start with 0 or 1, IIDs are 64
> bits long, period.

Are you disagreeing that unicast addresses starting with 000 are the vast majority of potential future unicast addresses?

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email