IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Sat, 22 July 2017 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.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 8FF8C131DA1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Jul 2017 08:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Uv55XyhjyXn5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Jul 2017 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC29131B27 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Jul 2017 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1dYwJx-0000KWC; Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:27:57 +0200
Message-Id: <m1dYwJx-0000KWC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20150804195752.5065.13523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Bt4hhBvtSVWrLpns4odzek3U5WJkuQoS1NGsPozW0sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3vVREsYc4Y6AAdDpLKsMjwH_2saS7JTn8P6fRDXRKV7Q@mail.gmail.com> <596F63F4.9010501@foobar.org> <fe7a1def-e656-c6d8-5336-ed5595331b74@gmail.com> <ed0fde09ae2a4a598c9a84eb0df659e8@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <69a7f9f2-584e-a2bc-1200-64fad8f9baf7@gmail.com> <652efa7dcb414b7ba6128bb4f93a3d7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfbLzfSYBBuS58CB6EWYkLLoqgGnb==v0CSScfZBFp=HQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1dYUCB-0000F6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b236fadb7af643a680f251a5c4cee6e8@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:41:19 +0000 ." <b236fadb7af643a680f251a5c4cee6e8@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 17:27:51 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DGT4J19TC5S-B-vPYUISvwVdvEo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:28:08 -0000

>> Independent of what RFC 4291 currently says, I would prefer IID to
>> only refer to address configuration using SLAAC.
>
>Might I suggest that this is a bigger change than that of removing notions =
>of hard 64-bit boundaries?

Note that it is meant to be a documentation change. No change in how
IPv6 is currently deployed.

So IID only refers to SLAAC.

>Two routers interconnected with /127s. Does that last bit not identify the =
>interface?

Let me just call the part after the prefix 'host part'. Then in the
case of a /127 the host part would be 1 bit.

By and large a 'host part' does have any properties. Other than that for a 
/n prefix, the host part is of length 128-n bits.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email