Re: [spring] IPv6 Addresses and SIDs

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

/64 prefix is a pile of addresses ... if someone would be to follow your
suggestion I could not allocate some blocks of that prefix on R1, then some
other blocks on R2 then yet more on my servers.

You said:

*“With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC
4291, all /128 MUST either:*



   - *Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or*
   - *Be unassigned”*


Maybe you meant to say something else:

*“When a /64 is used as SRv6 locator prefix, if one /128 represents an IPv6
interface, as described in RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either:*



   - *Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or*
   - *Be unassigned”*

But then you sent this to SPRINT indicating that 6MAN should be the
audience :).

Best,
R.


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:45 AM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> I’m having a hard time understanding exactly how I have violated the
> longest match principle. Could you provide:
>
>
>
>    - A pointer to a statement of the longest match principle
>    - A few words regarding how I have violated it
>
>
>
>                                                               Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 13, 2019 5:24 PM
> *To:* Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* SPRING WG List <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
>
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> I disagree.
>
>
>
> Your suggestion violates longest prefix match principle in routing.
>
>
>
> It is huge waist of address space and is not specific to IPv6 at all.
>
>
>
> Let me describe the deployment case where your suggestion would cause it
> to break:
>
>
>
> I have /64 prefix where a few  /128s from that space I allocate to local
> interfaces making it a local v6 destinations on those nodes.
>
>
>
> However in the spirit of CIDR I still want to to use some blocks of that
> space - say  /126 or /124 as blocks which I only use to trigger local NAT
> as per rfc6296. And NAT does not require local address to be a destination
> address so it would be a big disservice to kill such deployment option.
>
>
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:59 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I think that we need a global rule that says:
>
>
>
> “With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC
> 4291, all /128 MUST either:
>
>
>
>    - Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or
>    - Be unassigned”
>
>
>
> The 6man WG will need to make such a statement since it owns RFC 4291.
>
>
>
>                                                              Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
>