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

George Xu <xuyunmail@gmail.com> Thu, 27 September 2012 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <xuyunmail@gmail.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 69A5C21F841C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 y-A9f+l9z2qD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE02921F841A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so1872918qab.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tffs5fb7WMjRbC3cemUPY8K7Y+2uTGT5IrOlEIO3s9c=; b=Fu5uNXPUGX/kXomMWoyrzz4y3ffpdsKRCYeDOmIn4IDYxiujRnYbUaJZILjkPLJ/nD X0qM9Llf4B5DAG9ez/+4cldvi3lCIPEJEzheWARJEb2j8aXj0OjfOs7js+n1KOL6anSC UiQOmderyQ8BKtggBGSED810s1Pz75PPPl9OrKq6AO9lR6MCUdQaTFQxHPwdKRLhZKC3 Oazt2G0vVjx0slbDhw9isOjHBlOkteIuoNrvuNcC1qKrl6PwncJL0u5IgkQSwNRrSwyX N/Hkl5xy2vi1pz5RoANIXctmx3p/o8bx8xukSMHMicey5NZet1wUvVZ8IZYHHqj5R0Vi bFNw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.223.13 with SMTP id ii13mr7460008qab.68.1348728502281; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.96.105 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5063DFC1.407@bogus.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:48:22 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHxQsgAYhYmiFweU6jWAQ6Dui215Ze6tJ88Vfd=tbqLTbYFkcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
From: George Xu <xuyunmail@gmail.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074b47e46e4b804caa9536f
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 06:48:23 -0000

On Thu, Sep 27, 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.
>
>
The confusion aired from Usman is also with me.

The potential address overlap in lower-64 bit space while assigning prefix
longer than /64 (in RFC5375) seems to me a valid concern.I am wondering if
the community regarded these potential address overlaps are no longer of
concerns at all while RFC 6164 was published.

George