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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 27 September 2012 05:10 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 C42A421F8669 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, 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 l4Oykt7l+juA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B20521F8670 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local (c-98-234-216-143.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.216.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8R5APGP065066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:10:26 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <5063DFC1.407@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:10:25 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20120905 Thunderbird/16.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
References: <3C3333E3-9F4A-4522-94BD-F92B72C8B9A6@employees.org> <1348704486.49402.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <m2obks3wcx.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2obks3wcx.wl%randy@psg.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]); Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:10:27 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:10:29 -0000

On 9/26/12 9:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> There is clearly two set of recommendations over the same addressing
>> scenario which I am only trying to clarify with the IETF community.
There aren't really. The world moved on from 3627 and the scenario 
described in 6164 represents both observed reality and expectations.
> no.  but please go do whatever you want in your network and stop trying
> to stir a long cold pot
>
> randy
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>