IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len-17.txt

sthaug@nethelp.no Mon, 13 May 2019 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 90596120020 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 j267AoF-_ebg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6741200DB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2E2E6047; Mon, 13 May 2019 16:32:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 16:32:47 +0200
Message-Id: <20190513.163247.474361422.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: hayabusagsm@gmail.com
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len-17.txt
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CC44D89A-9002-4807-B43D-408B6B81D315@gmail.com>
References: <3aca6800-8b3e-8a0e-eacb-2cd8eceddbb9@gmail.com> <20190513.115657.485273190.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CC44D89A-9002-4807-B43D-408B6B81D315@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 26 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/GuABZWxMEA-rEtBp8Ad_UdLhUuQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 13 May 2019 14:32:52 -0000

> I agree that we need an IPv6 router id 128 bit expanded field

Why? I really doubt you're planning more than 2^32 routers in your
OSPF infrastructure.

> and even now with the IPv6-only flag draft of which Microsoft and maybe other vendors are getting on board as major players that enterprises can definitely deploy managed networks to IPv6 only in the access side and use 6to4 nat 6to4 dns and 6to4 proxy for internal and external IPv4 resource access.

There is no connection between IPv6-only and 32 bit OSPF router ID, as
far as I can see. A 32 bit OSPF router ID won't prevent you from going
IPv6-only.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email