Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks

Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com> Thu, 27 September 2012 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <osmankh@yahoo.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 5094A21F8569 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoxUY0qSKbMJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm6-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm6-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B74E721F855D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2012 17:38:04 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.160] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2012 17:38:04 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2012 17:38:04 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 677999.27920.bm@omp1016.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 21798 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2012 17:38:04 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=Rok7p2UmR9x/3/PwZnRIepIUgNyExZcCCUKamhAHHPtVjrS2Ctu2V9d+DrnlZ+FFIkDW5kVBysch5xur78kuDfNblJPZk3fmZ5wrO0K2rLe50Ea5tbFMABewjX7GSR4FKL+tEuFfTuyc08bOKAfbsuN/atVfqVwEiS4dKRXIkiM= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1348767484; bh=1E+mHVMUaRB678/RmHaKjBuAozt7noEVmUGon7a44O0=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; b=zz13Mxn0JEQ53qYf1BEiQaceA14xa02byYvX11q2McrqPaw7pUVSTsK3Tb++zLusbEGFClmHDaW6Lk38AAXgQo465gxxXDGPtA5g+LLq80pIM+VugqlliSRkttdy6G9AiwF95d9v39NdnYGDVFeujg3TLF0KkrP5qsC6dnFSSVs=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: bCzsePEVM1kxHKeHYX5McyDroEazAwsi7Vy8kOmRk9oeyb9 za4wzkPRFqcsMQVOiLKp9qbPnoIP.gUQcP8xC3yqG00tti2uP2SGhNs3H3Cg yzlY_zN2YAtJtkgLIr3M.p2MuojrASAJfzchDG1jNykp9z8Y7AbudZ3GKCGF SOziF3EfyeHkKGDihI5WrwOhCVvcimlRsPbJOXRmvDhbxYNuGYA3kxhI_yZl fjZDtax0sacfn9X.vhhyWrMoHSreMfOaPvWzCF4EVn94NdEUa9bH8809QqnZ SeXxIu7op5HzdBrghrKab.hw.xdvo2D9tUwa9qE3ef9qVB97onKFO66DZJKt UC0Uc7tT4pR_BTQlQP6S5LOmQ_arGTPoiJ2lbm1vnjyAcy.ykSSbLv8kFKBI j4YIGYJ._Htu4pDUCeJuAJWui.3dalcd_eYR_FehYlBYZCge2wh1O.YCEoMR Yus1B
X-Yahoo-SMTP: RUL5CFuswBD02LFE5KfPCwZifSs-
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (osmankh@27.32.72.22 with xymcookie) by smtp105-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2012 17:38:04 +0000 UTC
References: <3C3333E3-9F4A-4522-94BD-F92B72C8B9A6@employees.org> <1348704486.49402.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <m2obks3wcx.wl%randy@psg.com> <5063DFC1.407@bogus.com> <D7F25F99-40BB-4EE7-AA68-45F23897D8E8@yahoo.com> <506450AA.90305@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <506450AA.90305@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9467057F-773B-43DB-8719-AC9AEEF2DA7D@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206)
From: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:38:00 +1000
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:38:08 -0000

I'll conclude on the following points:

i. The only guidance that's out there today for device loopbacks (whether informational or standards track) is 5375 -because 6164 (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) chose not to provide any considerations for /128 loopbacks

ii. A reader following considerations of /128 from 5375 is led to also consider B.2.4  B.2.6 and B.2.7 for any prefixes where the subnet length is longer than /64

iii. If 6164 overrides any previous RFCs, IMO it should provide some reasoning of why it no longer felt that the sections B.2.4. B.2.6 and B.2.7 of 5375 should be considered



Sent from my iPhone

On 27/09/2012, at 11:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> Usman,
> 
> On 27/09/2012 12:43, Usman Latif wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> 
>> RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical
>> However, I am looking more from perspective of 5375
> 
> RFC 5375 is an Informational document. You are at liberty to read it or not,
> and to make use of it or not.
> 
> RFC 6164 is a Standards track document. It is of course a voluntary standard
> like all IETF standards, but if you claim to implement it, it clearly preempts
> an older Informational document such as RFC 5375.
> 
> As SM reminded us, it was probably a mistake that RFC 6164 didn't formally
> update RFC 5375, but so what? There are many minor inconsistencies between
> RFCs. Please don't lose any sleep over it. As long as you aren't accidentally
> running SLAAC on a pt2pt link, none of this matters, as far as I can see.
> 
>  Brian
> 
> P.S. I am now adding this thread to my "ietf-silly-subj" filter.