IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 26 September 2012 04:40 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 579AC21F867B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 GqVQFVTcZB6l for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6538721F867E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26040 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2012 04:40:26 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 26 Sep 2012 04:40:26 -0000
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 06:40:26 +0200
Message-Id: <20120926.064026.74728234.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: osmankh@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <1348632032.36928.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1348632032.36928.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.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
Cc: 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: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:40:30 -0000

> IMO RFC 6164 although being very authoritative and direct about use of /127 (from the same /64) on each p2p link is not giving us any insight into other current (or future) reserved addresses that were explained in more detail in RFC 5375 so in doing that RFC 6164 is raising doubts in our minds about using /127 (from the same /64) for p2p router links and also there is no talk in RFC 6164 about use of /128 loopbacks and what cautions are needed there - whereas we saw that in RFC 5375 (although informational only) there was a more comprehensive discussion around use of shorter length prefixes for p2p links and loopbacks

*You* may feel that RFC 6164 is raising doubt. I don't. I'm glad to see
an RFC that fills a needed hole, and clearly describes something which
is already used by service providers (including my employer).

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email