Your IP Address is: 38.107.191.82
RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH
From: Robert J. Rockell (rrockell@sprint.net)
Date: 10/15/03
- Next message: Bound, Jim: "RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH"
- Previous message: Bound, Jim: "RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH"
- In reply to: Bound, Jim: "RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH"
- Next in thread: Bound, Jim: "RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH"
moonv6 post from "Robert J. Rockell" <rrockell@sprint.net>
If you want to test interoperabilty with best-common-practices (in the
grammatical sense of the phrase, not the IETF one) then you need to look at
/64's. This is the way the majority of the 6bone is numbered. I don't see
motivation for /120. If you are going to just pick a random netwmask, use
/127, to save space, on all p2p links. the notion of reserved and broadcast
on a p2p link have changed, after all...
I can tell you from a provider standpoint, we ALWAYS use /64. Personal opinions on whether or not this is needed/smart aside, this is how things get deployed. I would recommend consistency, if you want to maximize impact of your testing.
Thanks
Rob Rockell
SprintLink
(+1) 703-689-6322
It's just a little pin prick...
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
->moonv6 post from "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
->Folks,
->
->I would like to make something clear as we have this discussion.
->
->This is not an IETF issue other than IETF can help with interpretation
->of the standard though I await Alain's response as I see no spec issue
->here at all per his mail with /120.
->
->But the IETF has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT MOONV6 DEPLOYMENT OR OPERATIONS.
->NOTHING AT ALL. They are a standards body we are an implementation
->deployment body.
->
->Thanks
->/jim
->
->> -----Original Message-----
->> From: Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
->> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:51 PM
->> To: moonv6@iol.unh.edu
->> Subject: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH
->>
->>
->> moonv6 post from Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
->> From what our engineer reported from UNH tests,
->> the plan on record is to use /120 prefixes for
->> the backbone links at UNH.
->>
->> This would be a violation of RFC 3513, section 2.5.1.
->>
->> I'm concerned that if this network setup gets published,
->> it would set up a dangerous precedent.
->>
->> - Alain.
->>
->>
->> 2.5.1 Interface Identifiers
->>
->> Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used
->> to identify
->> interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique
->> within a subnet
->> prefix. It is recommended that the same interface
->> identifier not be
->> assigned to different nodes on a link. They may also be
->> unique over
->> a broader scope. In some cases an interface's identifier will be
->> derived directly from that interface's link-layer
->> address. The same
->> interface identifier may be used on multiple interfaces
->> on a single
->> node, as long as they are attached to different subnets.
->>
->> Note that the uniqueness of interface identifiers is
->> independent of
->> the uniqueness of IPv6 addresses. For example, a global unicast
->> address may be created with a non-global scope interface
->> identifier
->> and a site-local address may be created with a global
->> scope interface
->> identifier.
->>
->> For all unicast addresses, except those that start with
->> binary value
->> 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
->> constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
->>
->>
->
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 12/01/06 EST