On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2010-03-26 08:00, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Mark Smith < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> One should note that [ADDRARCH] specifies universal/local bits (u/g), >>> which are the 70th and 71st bits in any address from non-000/3 range. >>> When assigning prefixes longer than 64 bits, these should be taken >>> into consideration; in almost every case, u should be 0, as the last >>> 64 bits of a long prefix is very rarely unique. 'G' is still >>> unspecified, but defaults to zero. Thus, all prefixes with u or g=1 >>> should be avoided." >>> >> >> Is it enough to say in the draft that the u/g bit should be set to zero when >> the operator assigns /127 prefixes? > > s/should/MUST/. And IMHO that alone is sufficient reason to progress > this draft. Operators already use /127 prefixes for router/router links, > they will continue to do so whatever the IETF writes, but they would > likely respect this rule if it was documented. > > Yes, this is an exception to the general rule, but if point-to-point > links between routers aren't a special case, I don't know what is. > > I don't think we need to justify obsoleting an informational > RFC in the face of reality. Just make this a short BCP, with > most of the words removed.
+1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
