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

Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com> Thu, 27 September 2012 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <osmankh@yahoo.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 DBBFE21F84D5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 IQEgczyr5+rt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm14-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm14-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 025F321F84CE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.212.145] by nm14.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2012 11:43:56 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.235] by tm2.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2012 11:43:56 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1044.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2012 11:43:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 142891.82555.bm@omp1044.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 40670 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2012 11:43:56 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=V3EIumTmMqWlZZYNKvc9pt/aY8RAjqz+wn8AGhWyAH6rsiTN2uTmpa5/Oir5JBDU9ePfSgKcTXHENX14ieTfyFejuNLtcQZrqIHJThkP0kXWW8UOc4jEUuX7xbAKe/ouyyQdOfGaKSB3Xd+0EIDHNQxEpJykQrapf7x5tV2u7SM= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1348746236; bh=2xxL/7gL21fT6MFUy5sVZa+AvF2JKxAngBaH0qk/yNQ=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=f0a6rxEH7J9rc/XD/sIlaepMgw/hdCVcj212qDAnA46F56q25ZLE39Ewl6dkVBKPS8to6jPA5PR2Ih2yMgo5+2bwDirvfvsn1nIdY1rz5sC0k+nS2gZjc+tzZ5g1rMQRV8ffy+Ppf+2mQr3aykbM1QLfZlrYG4Z7DO/NHgx6doc=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: HIUhopsVM1lnrzqdgEVNB8ZfqZEXgwN14CekMD2lN4VK9bW 8rJiu5GPyKUbMsqLlvG_DBoUTQ9I.u4gUJ3_B1vlOeOsyxcuRAyz_WfzkwxS ftCg65sKaXvK7xqwpROLRek1c6PzwfDe11VkDPpyhUP54ABn.UwyC4UMFrGz dxBT6O9MmXky62DD86JGsBHKTX8.Et.IewwCXScIczgMfkNNb7aaggZd8mBH niiGLdtiP8ayhVIdPggSG4zbZQlFJh185NGRbIRnmFQUGLKqYyFeXqZjXySb SqyT1R3XSpCeVfZqm1B3JL2rjiQLeOy0azLyzAtkZbSvhjLbp6b9QkDlvGkm wdy2M.dOGIjwiW_Yxt7DT6LQk4gyul2HargiPxH9rF9DFFnTEsad0QGhdAiY rS.CP7PQ6N7BmfKO5Y7w85Oxn_PcRk7kAQx7ITceiyBbYosvYTvRh39W5tuG iKEOz
X-Yahoo-SMTP: RUL5CFuswBD02LFE5KfPCwZifSs-
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (osmankh@27.32.72.22 with xymcookie) by smtp110-mob.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2012 04:43:55 -0700 PDT
References: <3C3333E3-9F4A-4522-94BD-F92B72C8B9A6@employees.org> <1348704486.49402.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <m2obks3wcx.wl%randy@psg.com> <5063DFC1.407@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <5063DFC1.407@bogus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <D7F25F99-40BB-4EE7-AA68-45F23897D8E8@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206)
From: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:43:52 +1000
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: "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 11:44:05 -0000

Hi Joel,

RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical
However, I am looking more from perspective of 5375

Also If one has to "go read the discussion on 6164" to understand it - this is itself an indication that 6164 has not done a good job of providing a conclusive recommendation on use of prefixes with subnet lengths longer than /64

If 6164 was going to override recommendations of 5375, the least one would expect is the RFC 6164 to document the reasons why it felt that the additional considerations provided in section B.2.4  B.2.6 and B.2.7 of RFC5375 are to be ignored or don't hold true anymore- this reasoning should have been made part of the RFC6164...

Instead the 6164 provided reasons around ping-pong issue and neighbor cache issue - both of which appear weak as one is resolved thru 4443 and the other can be resolved thru feature enhancements in the neighbor caching process...

Usman


On 27/09/2012, at 3:10 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

> 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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>