IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question about RFC6724

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-8@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 02 May 2022 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b28DE43C2@u-1.phicoh.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 117D6C14F74F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 00:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8_b6FUtW88mw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2022 00:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94A4C14F725 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2022 00:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1nlQqC-0000IEC; Mon, 2 May 2022 09:51:32 +0200
Message-Id: <m1nlQqC-0000IEC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question about RFC6724
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-8@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b28DE43C2@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 2 May 2022 16:32:46 +1200 ." <985e9c94-b6f7-b45d-208d-e9b26664540b@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 09:51:31 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/avF7OlqVLCOaaMy9G738prFkgVU>
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 07:51:40 -0000

>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:

In the context of RFC 6724, can you give an example where limiting the
CommonPrefixLen to 64 gives the wrong result?

If there is a choice between different IPv4 source or destination
addresses, then the RFC allows implementations to have extra code.
Aditionally, specifying the behavior of IPv4 implementations seems
out of scope.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email