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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 27 September 2012 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 19A4F21F8615 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 X1T+JIClG3H0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007B721F8602 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8R0QKYP000050; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1348705585; bh=m45Efc7HbfctkpzlUIvyrbQcnUxCDghMbsi2lRkuN6k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jB0GagGyDR0sJh67fKSY90IINzjq4JLPftsKvzxK8jZxV5+ziVNNHwuRB0vvPSgF7 BkD5zV6nKIqGmlZC8xTNdcYc8at1Skqupw4h+2MKHUHnIpsnZ0ksi+dlbXvOSrMLxn bCjVYJzP2drMoxm5YEJmGhovdD1w/SNAP7lFFYYo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1348705585; i=@resistor.net; bh=m45Efc7HbfctkpzlUIvyrbQcnUxCDghMbsi2lRkuN6k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=j7gXA83bJcPPIxG+M2VbnJSUJ7K6lbimFJQAflJejfrXlEg4Pw+GHXhDLJ76fBm7L iwMbSDWKxU6lXX2/4uPjs3AeRKVyoilCDiin2QdYOGFWXORsWPJFz8H2PwyZo7upiX DnyJUXLR3dq/Zrxqcio47B4p9kV4zT8IuT6uigPk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120926171836.0a702c28@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:22:38 -0700
To: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and Device Loopbacks
In-Reply-To: <1348704486.49402.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo .com>
References: <3C3333E3-9F4A-4522-94BD-F92B72C8B9A6@employees.org> <1348704486.49402.YahooMailClassic@web126005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:26:28 -0000

Hi Usman,
At 17:08 26-09-2012, Usman Latif wrote:
>There is clearly two set of recommendations over the same addressing 
>scenario which I am only trying to clarify with the IETF community.
>RFC 6164 has recommendations that do not encompass all the 
>recommendations that were put forward in RFC 5375
>
>So although when RFC 6547 moved the RFC 3627 to historical status, 
>it completely ignored that RFC 5375 has additional recommendations 
>for the same /127 and /128 addressing scenarios.
>
>What I am now trying to clarify is - should we consider 
>recommendations in RFC 5375 (section B.2) as obsolete ?

See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg13685.html

Regards,
-sm