IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Question about RFC6724

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 02 May 2022 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 C7328C15E404 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 07:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KqpETmEU7B9L for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 07:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 C1ACEC15E3F7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2022 07:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 242EWfnh013957; Mon, 2 May 2022 10:32:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1651501962; bh=VKIh+Pd4S4Sl3NGQ7ryx63Xo/re1voXlxqeY25lROLU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=f4yVk4Xhbd/abZbTghgHY1xwSwQv/K/X2mSRKs4NIAUES6ah3czgt2O6C4iwQX0r9 CAub2PYBfKyeNfuabOPPIJaxOLMCAUd80wS1CNSPXJlCxg90IODeg7/sEhiq1jBITw 5Qc+FRoiGORtck1H5YRb1FQNEoyybcEOzdg5V4W8QZTp4slDSTTLNxvmMIMGfwPeps mSkpdtB4wtx1vNRfHYaF26WbsG3TKyIicFr7gr+zTCiumQTkNwNxf1aYcK4MbAtLhL 1sD1LBTJS/22UwcQddb4oIpIWr7MouoZ3Df6/30bK+t591xgKIAbLl3bXrc6kP1IT1 bby4oGpZeeXMw==
Received: from XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-12.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.114]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 242EWbZ1013917 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 May 2022 10:32:37 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 2 May 2022 07:32:36 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Mon, 2 May 2022 07:32:36 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Question about RFC6724
Thread-Topic: Question about RFC6724
Thread-Index: AdheMMrM+F+qm1yxQMqP9upH7xlomw==
Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 14:32:36 +0000
Message-ID: <3709f4b8570a4fd1b1f5b46f2152ee5d@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: DF85527959D58A448890F1F0CAD2337B6115CA79C4EFE6C27615067AD9858EC02000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O0VdLkcm6tij1GTzIk7O_zn73go>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 02 May 2022 14:32:48 -0000

Brian, my understanding is that routing information can include prefix lengths longer than
/64 (e.g., /96, /112, /120, etc. up to /128). So, if a forwarding information base includes:

   ::ffff:192.0.2.0/120

Then, that entry would match all addresses from ::ffff:192.0.2.0 up to ::ffff:192.0.2.255.

That seems only natural to me - does it seem surprising to you?

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2022 9:33 PM
> To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Question about RFC6724
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but I have a question about RFC6724. The rules depend on longest prefix matching and therefore on the definition of
> CommonPrefixLen(S, D).
> 
> The way it's defined doesn't work for ::ffff:0:0/96, as far as I can see:
> 
> >
> > 2.2.  Common Prefix Length
> >
> >    We define the common prefix length CommonPrefixLen(S, D) of a source
> >    address S and a destination address D as the length of the longest
> >    prefix (looking at the most significant, or leftmost, bits) that the
> >    two addresses have in common, up to the length of S's prefix (i.e.,
> >    the portion of the address not including the interface ID).  For
> >    example, CommonPrefixLen(fe80::1, fe80::2) is 64.
> 
> The "interface ID" is simply a non-concept for IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. So what do implementations do? What is the common prefix
> length of ::ffff:10.1.0.10 and :ffff:10.1.0.1, in terms of the RFC6724 rules?
> 
>       Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email