IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why /64

Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> Mon, 28 October 2013 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
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 B7F3D21E80DF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bnxHRG8hxii for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobre.alvarezp.com (sobre.alvarezp.com [173.230.155.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2242011E818D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.251] (189.220.45.207.cable.dyn.cableonline.com.mx [189.220.45.207]) by sobre.alvarezp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D100613D; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:56:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <526E9735.8080708@alvarezp.ods.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:56:21 -0700
From: Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130821 Icedove/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why /64
References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|9f43bef2fe7433173858819bd0eeee2dp9OKUJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr0q2dY041CMarFfTZZx6=qHC-eJ+74qgiHP-dt7+ga7yg@mail.gmail.com> <526CF079.7030804@globis.net> <526E41BC.3080303@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <526E41BC.3080303@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:56:51 -0000

On 10/28/2013 03:51 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Me? I believe in CIDR.
> 
> The IPv4's CIDR concept (route based on bitwise borders, instead of
> 8byte) seems to me a good clue for the discussion about the fix 64bit
> limit in IPv6.

CIDR is already being used. /80s, /96s and other arbitrary netmasks can
be set on some devices and should work. Some of them may misbehave, though.

But still, there is nothing to fix. The /64 limit is not a problem and
will not be.

Also, RFC 4941 (and some others) depend on /64 networks.

Cheers.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status