ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

2017-02-24 09:05:39


Le 24/02/2017 à 04:13, Fernando Gont a écrit :
On 02/23/2017 07:43 PM, David Farmer wrote:


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com
<mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>> wrote:

    Help he understand, then. There is widely-deployed code that assumes
    that the interface ID is 64 and does not work on anything other than
    64 bit prefix lengths. Currently that code is correct on all unicast
    space. If you change RFC 4291, won't that code be incorrect?


OK, what if we said something like this;

   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
   128 [BCP198]. However, all implementations of IPv6 are REQUIRED to
   support an IID length of 64 bits, other IID lengths are OPTIONAL.
   Subnet prefixes of /64 are RECOMMENDED for general purpose use,
   subnet prefixes of /127 are RECOMMENDED for point-to-point router
   links [RFC6164], other subnet prefix lengths are NOT RECOMMENDED,
   as their use could be incompatible with some implementations of IPv6.
   The rationale for the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found
   in [RFC7421].

I'd remove a few sentences here, as in:

   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
   128 [BCP198]. Subnet prefixes of /64 are RECOMMENDED for general
   purpose use, subnet prefixes of /127 are RECOMMENDED for point-
   to-point router links [RFC6164]. The rationale for the 64 bit
   boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421].

For me IMHO that is still too much text. Who needs her favorite use purpose to be called general by an archi doc and why?

Why not the ptp links be general purpose?  For example ptp cellular links?

Alex


Thanks,


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>