Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64
Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 21:55 UTC
Return-Path: <osmankh@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345301A0537 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
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 l6Kk9nmo7D5Y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm29-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm29-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AABC1A0314 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.138.226.178] by nm29.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2014 21:55:23 -0000
Received: from [98.138.226.60] by tm13.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2014 21:55:23 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp211.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Mar 2014 21:55:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1395093323; bh=DO7nOYRdjIYlTXs2C4UwZNlHkYuf2aG/17pHKc6cSYA=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:Subject:From:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=aR97H5bByz2/ssi4dFMNFxYlqaPmacAZqoHdZbhzSN8v02vkpJfZOzqRH16VKHJZdoA/6qNpNJ1ndPxyxz5ZU7rZIEAxT5BZ5LxwboXD3U+2pwVMxGfSgBNUsr8t/7Bldf+DV9ZX1+J4JNvDk+eS+owrlY2on/ygFoaHC8XwyNk=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 901175.39310.bm@smtp211.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: UxxSVNIVM1nZYY9he6lqlnya3f.z4G6HGlhXN2PJgOpoMZz ciP35E_3A3Xims87YVhLonngfsSpxkMFFKmrvWX25F181aluM..OX4kcyUwO a2uP1DIUXN88ID8e7UyGssTmzZ_qB3XeEF1tTlS4miJiX7Z1Rs1wPFfiUqYx OuTzQ8VpWkAE5TmZk30GWrnsMfAL9xMZ8TE8bCvt5fvAdQMF50yRfjb6N_Mr ZjJsMPUzT9kVRvnA_wIDAAWdjJ_iJHqhM1xAhpvrQzfHqkxaV1eHF_rBoih8 SyZK9GwHq.z9dqz13hl8UdITdPVkNVXtISIco.1gZ2I80jnsq1R_JNAUzbWw zuz53BcsQ5Z553DlI4lj6t3WuDg8GDG9mTHRQ.U92CkN6mEc6vKBthrzcPcK OCCh4IuAwma9W2TryBJ_tTNxJwYNNKaV64iC15_gcrOrZnQeVrNEd_BgD4.z R7w4Ji1NZNXmOB2GOkdvH2UTImI6bSiHmI3BwFrv.K60iejxI.0H3nqndNgR F86H2LWPbbvTxXqDHGnEm0y3N6sUs9ehZct80RF8KoIx1Z60ali08Yz8-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: RUL5CFuswBD02LFE5KfPCwZifSs-
X-Rocket-Received: from [10.136.14.109] (osmankh@101.171.136.116 with xymcookie [66.196.81.168]) by smtp211.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2014 14:55:23 -0700 PDT
Subject: Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64
From: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329)
Message-Id: <A0A90E3A-50C3-4A28-A33C-CE1882E57967@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:55:18 +1100
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/S1Y3nn1RG7OrmiEcUZl1EBy_uQ0
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:55:33 -0000
I think (although not sure if such a method exists today) that if there was a way to identify looking at specific (reserved?) bits in the upper 64-bit portion of the IPv6 address to tell the routing system whether the lower 64-bits are IID or not, that would probably give best of both worlds to IPv6 addressing and provide a more efficient use of address space.. Thoughts? Regards, Usman
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 Ran Atkinson
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 RJ Atkinson
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 sthaug
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 RJ Atkinson
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 Usman Latif
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 Usman Latif
- Re: router behaviour with prefixes longer than /64 Brian E Carpenter