IETF Logo Mail Archive

AW: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> Fri, 13 January 2017 05:10 UTC

Return-Path: <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
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 16759129A18; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:10:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 GaMalI41yUgq; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:10:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0D0E129A16; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (109.45.0.162) by linfreserv (Axigen) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 2C8500; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:09:47 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: BlackBerry Email (10.3.2.2876)
Message-ID: <20170113050947.6025298.97977.75536@linfre.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:09:47 +0100
Subject: AW: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
From: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
In-Reply-To: <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/I6MPs9WUnYba56RXD8QR-6VQg3E>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, int-dir@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:10:09 -0000

  Originalnachricht  
Von: Randy Bush
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 01:51
An: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IPv6 List; int-dir@ietf.org; Bob Hinden; draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org; IETF
Betreff: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

> RFC7421 (which is Informational) calls out RFC 6164 (not 6141!) as an exception.
> To be precise it says:
> 
> The de facto length of almost all IPv6 interface identifiers is
> therefore 64 bits. The only documented exception is in [RFC6164],
> which standardizes 127-bit prefixes for point-to-point links between
> routers, among other things, to avoid a loop condition known as the
> ping-pong problem.
> 
> I would suggest adding a similar exception statement in 4291bis.

 just get rid of classful addressing. we went through this
in the '90s.

‎I can only support this, while /127 is a good exception for ptp links, it's still useless for small nets with 4-5 IPs like a network between routers and a Firewall cluster.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email