Re: [v6ops] draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost a working group draft?

[Paul Marks <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:44 AM, james woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 17:31, Paul Marks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> When delegating to a host, I often wonder whether it's technically
> incorrect to use prefix::0 as a normal address.  Does anyone know for
> sure?
>
>
> RFC4291 pretty clearly specifies that [$prefix::] is one of the Subnet
> Router anycast addresses in the set of all subnets where n >= len($prefix),
> where the IID on the link type is (n - 128), and where the subnet prefix is
> [$prefix::/n].
>
>
RFC4291 says "a subnet prefix is associated with one link", but a pdhost
prefix is assigned to a host, which doesn't really behave like a link
(there's no neighbor discovery, for example.)

So, is a pdhost prefix actually a "subnet prefix" (with reserved
addresses), or something distinct?

I would advocate for permitting the host to do whatever it wants with the
(128-n) bits.  That could include "treat it like a regular subnet prefix"
or "build a service where every hash(content) gets an IP address."