IETF Logo Mail Archive

6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6D63A68D7 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YEe3l5xZKTGU for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496FC28C101 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUGAJ58T0ytJV2d/2dsb2JhbACBRJFVjFJxpG+bDQKDBoIuBIQMhxwMAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.55,272,1278288000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="140101964"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2010 07:42:59 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6S7gxE5006427; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:42:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-114.cisco.com ([72.163.62.156]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:42:59 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB2E28.7F91D1B5"
Subject: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:42:56 -0500
Message-ID: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C023A62FB@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
Thread-Index: AcsuKH5V/LiTOaYDQeOARmlCuQ+s0Q==
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2010 07:42:59.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[7FEF4D70:01CB2E28]
Cc: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:42:41 -0000

I agree with Dave Thaler from yesterday's discussion in 6man related to
the /127 draft.  In the two router scenario for /127, each router is
off-link to the other and then one has nothing to bother about for
anycast address.  Folks are also encouraged to read the IPv6 Subnet
Model RFC where off-link has been clarified  - RFC 5942.

 

So now is there anything left to specify for this /127 issue that needs
to be described in draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p?

 

Hemant


Hemant Singh
Technical Leader.engineering
Product Development
shemant@cisco.com
Phone: +1 978 936 1622
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States
Cisco.com - http://www.cisco.com


For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email