Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

sthaug@nethelp.no Thu, 16 February 2017 07:40 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 153DD1294DB; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:40:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 q7NVDjMefv7M; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC23129447; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F466E6065; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:40:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:40:04 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170216.084004.74672265.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: randy@psg.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <m2wpcqeuot.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <75196cfa-5476-0c7b-7612-ea2e446fc6f1@gmail.com> <B4A4FFFD-A90D-4C26-BDBD-75555840CA22@employees.org> <m2wpcqeuot.wl-randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XbhAxvshtjp2Z5yZ8QeHpvjEIF4>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:40:09 -0000

> >    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
> >    128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
> >    on inter-router point-to-point links.  However, the Interface ID of
> >    unicast addresses used for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
> >    [RFC4862] is required to be 64 bits long. The rationale for the 64
> >    bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
> 
> i can live with this.

+1

Steinar Haug, AS2116