IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 05 January 2014 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 2517B1AD6B9; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:07:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vWRKVVMpDY0U; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0F51AD69E; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so17683889pbc.21 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:07:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=db2e1Irsh5E3iTOME4puKOYCCgEAycDTkGJ2lRJJqqg=; b=oatU8ajMcWlu7T7AoDt1tS8ACmOOfn59X4PMTJEDwvxo7I3On+5xCSOI0kNT7/rSSB oU2Izx3NlFJBsMiXlVL3RdMC9LGb7bIhSHUtpxiEBPHIp26ceXdmToKPSczMH/JpcJ+O C6luzvkG93l3PLSxNYmtup9Xa5Z7nrzF3kRag7ot9LzSft33DCaVStvISaSoKzoPE2IS x6wOFjxtzuWKg/TpXu1PdjvaNrWhtTXCBQhd846a2CYsIzhvjjwv38iKv1EmaBxLBDYL GYp/reFyRfmBIbu9hnIiM8MAuq4aXzTI+6OPaksWdJzU4gKIA+1zWNz+grQV2gL/E1xj D2pw==
X-Received: by 10.69.21.1 with SMTP id hg1mr118001356pbd.67.1388959626037; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (97.197.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.197.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yd4sm124051845pbc.13.2014.01.05.14.07.04 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Jan 2014 14:07:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52C9D788.8060606@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 11:07:04 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 22:07:16 -0000

Hi,

A group of us put this together following a discussion some weeks
ago on the v6ops list about the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addresses.
Discussion belongs in 6man, please.

This draft is incomplete but we'd welcome input. Let me underline
an important comment in the introduction:

  _The purpose of this document is to analyse the issues around this
   question.  We make no proposal for change, but we do analyse the
   possible effects of a change._


   Brian + co-authors

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 13:59:17 -0800
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title           : Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
        Authors         : Brian Carpenter
                          Tim Chown
                          Fernando Gont
                          Sheng Jiang
                          Alexandru Petrescu
                          Andrew Yourtchenko
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2014-01-05

Abstract:
   The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the
   prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier
   used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet.
   Historically the interface identifier has been defined as 64 bits
   long, leaving 64 bits for the prefix.  This document discusses the
   reasons for this fixed boundary and the issues involved in treating
   it as a variable boundary.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-why64/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email