Re: IID length text

sthaug@nethelp.no Mon, 23 January 2017 15:36 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 2A73012962A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:36:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UCp5m9aJdIpP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58921129609 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D231E6065; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:36:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:36:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170123.163609.74661096.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: tore@fud.no
Subject: Re: IID length text
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <20170123150743.6960611b@envy.e1.y.home>
References: <20170123124954.13329c33@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <CAKD1Yr2jFf=OFiCJLWV48FRZF1iuWK1mLJ9+kQiuFBxujgCOBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170123150743.6960611b@envy.e1.y.home>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pe7NctUnRdWBpeRxDBr0TEFpkXE>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 23 Jan 2017 15:36:13 -0000

> > the interface ID isn't really an ID any more.
> 
> I suppose you can look at it that way too...but wouldn't that then mean
> that you're essentially saying that you can have whatever amount of
> suffix/node/host bits in an IPv6 address you'd like, but you're only
> allowed to call it an «IID» if it just so happens to be exactly 64 of
> them? :-)

Isn't that how IPv6 is sometimes used in the real world? E.g. transit
providers who insist on a non-64 bit mask on the transit links.

Anybody who believes that only /64 (and /127) is in use on interfaces
in the real world is seriously deluded.

Steinar Haug, AS2116