IETF Logo Mail Archive

Question on anycast IID range(s)

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org> Wed, 02 January 2019 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
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 9C838130E90 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:51:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
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 ECkmOSUj1cSR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19506130E3F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:51:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id c14so31154125wrr.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:51:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=q5DPX62KL/vkBOWLcuM5nDt3w+1JpejkO2sTwFgi0TI=; b=GtHfPcXNY5IqyegCsB4y2JKiqb1Efj1Og/PTjhFISTiY8zpC/lOGqhZx4AfhxYgwID t9jflRVn7YGTjN94/bxOK/53icVsznlY0J8ppG9vFTqUROWplyexrutmRp/PbWf0ei2G jcNk04/o1qGr2OQI0YAlaEJBZ7fUUjJrD588g=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=q5DPX62KL/vkBOWLcuM5nDt3w+1JpejkO2sTwFgi0TI=; b=uS+5mGj0WjhAHv/9j/wKfdBXOj0SqEWYDXJVCHtYZmg+3QCy63m/Ze52zRINzn0Xun xe23aoBzYmUHVMa09+RdhnicQ+9ry8lVADk7xCiCRVmCoDvE3Ayz+uy1klVDuIsuV69K N+mfNI5i181KzNDROwSOs/nPw1V9X/TtCWE4hNYK6g53VwnCyhjK7v9/AlBesjbryxwU Y/STHGrjEvviMGmKIqNyEMHvOKco21m4uV5kX8yTBno+i6hn7XcM9IOL0xUASfILkWs3 wCC96SFygV0aGovbtmAhmJT9pS5EUoE3rCVzOUkK7ZrvBgEXRDAsxRvaztsyChgux1ZA ma+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdSO5IcZV/UF+oPhnZZPZLm4LQHYc4zcVSKt+WH4rgLU2C2Jou6 dBtICezjEFotZm3fYSIYj+WWXqr/XjnpgijirNqjR7KUmWw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6FoXvK6VV6KBHbpIKVX65XlLZS7o0N9LdmdY5T/G2JotjiNmf08t/AJ06VZh4XxXUcn01MMXfQumKjE5SdBsg=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f9cb:: with SMTP id w11mr38060945wrr.201.1546447876188; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:51:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 11:51:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CABOxzu1O6qd_23xLgpAsx6BiZ09SCNUAgFurOL2UX4HQTvYFCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Question on anycast IID range(s)
To: 6man 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000052f2fd057e7c7483"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yyh-0oLz8AXlq4pciqj98SG1ycI>
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: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 16:51:20 -0000

For practical purposes, particularly in light of RFC 7136, should one
consider an anycast address to be any that ends in dfff:ffff:ffff:ff80-
dfff:ffff:ffff:ffff OR ffff:ffff:ffff:ff80-ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff?

The phrase in RFC 2526 that's causing confusion for me is
"Specifically, for IPv6 address types required to have to have
[sic] 64-bit interface identifiers in EUI-64 format ..."  To my
knowledge, there are address types that require a 64-bit IID,
but it seems we've been systematically trying to deprecate
*EUI-64 format* IIDs.  In any case, there's nothing to prevent a
mix of EUI-64 or *other* format IIDs in the same subnet as far
as I'm aware.

Thanks, Kerry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email