Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01.txt
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sun, 30 December 2018 21:39 UTC
Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 6FD47130FF6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:39:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 c6rr3Yy-vnFb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63451200B3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E3EC09 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:39:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfZlCU3_BMNU for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:39:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vs1-f69.google.com (mail-vs1-f69.google.com [209.85.217.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 984FDBFC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:39:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vs1-f69.google.com with SMTP id w206so15242157vsc.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:39:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nWv3FBGVf1hjcs0UZIy68tHgFWLqTA/tM9TqqOirYqI=; b=OOWBmgS1XNbfaGsXKTXyK+484E8vXGmASAQZD2tkdsDBQvQDKD13IWcZ1nz14hWkIG 66VcuW3aSMCAiJS8lHDeju8+gz1u6Y2HNARveOn0aECQjopyT+sdkeh2Gr7zeQ2f0y4V bo5+DrB5mH7hJ7/9fnX+pqGlt7X3KBYFfFMoWjdNyVUpFcveLZ5mDckkRP3fJ0lzDLXV S0z8tuCFkbXIGw6KhTLiNN9CZlG9g9pkTa0aJflYQ0yWfqsM+w+KwXbqpGLSj0SXTfWe TyyqXdRF4Z71czd1Y9uc1PJHMQG9RdmW7wryrNnNcA2OS3sA2jrwRivwdsSkCC5g8adT B9zQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nWv3FBGVf1hjcs0UZIy68tHgFWLqTA/tM9TqqOirYqI=; b=EM8c6aVep/8I/J4yrdhIWcFGCKraN0SKubq4e+FhFKZ7+QJb1HANb2fJ1VbQGtUl2P HrIyfmAi7RHAG/J0/IgPaDLkEdi7VRkKmuc+kF+8cgfP9ZdWJM9hzqpBPWAJvuqSxY9w dKmLiopgfFeDIPlyK8U9ePqI4bscnK8gXHd8Uk8wVjYgN3s/GDJCMELs2Vs5X3aPFajG 9XfyaPJIlZyK6bxqPw4GPlLNwvJ1L4kZjWdArPofJ6tIbf4nP/m4MyHN8wHSMdJbRCd7 SYUsl/HCO9JREyr/i+3WiPzw7uVWIrNLoZ44wHJ8rMoEaISdhidTjbUU83V2a1iiaBjI zoEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdWKBYZn9oG5FN8ZL/WHDWj95Db6EaxanaowVgjWr9p0bb/QEZv 6QHSue7wh652xi5jHoC3jgLcMaQuxRiGoGVcXBnUdbFQaGUj1itgRfeQxBpG5i5sdmr22Ejehqk l/wwCOMNshF1Sr00rLVKDf5jG
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:72a:: with SMTP id h39mr13533432uah.11.1546205967890; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:39:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6lTDers9/Ua2j/LQBsTS2toifnEYEiD2LmH4nOhAYtgdLgoOy6oOR+Ygt0eXj64H8Y8jEYQvijOJOq21TY7kA=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:72a:: with SMTP id h39mr13533426uah.11.1546205967490; Sun, 30 Dec 2018 13:39:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154620337718.7068.8604232039480343189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154620337718.7068.8604232039480343189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 15:39:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1V_r3rLhC24rr++TbhK0CWBxnJ=By=9tDX3QU8MDVpWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01.txt
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000713a8c057e442106"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/xUgwDH7H0rKc7FEHLzs39Xr06wY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 21:39:34 -0000
Based on the discussion around draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64 I decided to take things in a slightly different direction. Let me know what you think. Thanks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 2:56 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01.txt To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> A new version of I-D, draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01.txt has been successfully submitted by David Farmer and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-farmer-6man-routing-64 Revision: 01 Title: IPv6 Routing and its Relationship to the 64-bit Boundary in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture Document date: 2018-12-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 16 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farmer-6man-routing-64/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farmer-6man-routing-64 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-01 Abstract: There is a common misconception that the IPv6 Addressing Architecture requires the use of only /64 subnet prefixes for subnet routing. This document clarifies the characterization of the relationship between IPv6 routing and the 64-bit boundary, which is that of a recommendation for the use of /64 subnet prefixes for subnet routing in most circumstances, not a requirement for such. To further clarify the relationship, the document also provides operational guidance for the configuration of subnet prefixes and updates RFC 4291 accordingly. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6m… David Farmer