Randy and others, -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:25 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
>not quite. what kawamucho, maz, i, ... said was that we did not want >vendors to break /127 on p2p links. we did not enumerate how the >vendors might do that. This discussion has totally derailed from its main perspective. If I may please focus the discussion back. As the subject of the email says, this was a discussion related to the /127 document (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-02) presented at the IETF 78. Well, did folks get a chance to read this draft which proposes normative changes to an existing RFC as follows. The text is snipped from section 6 of draft-kohno... [The [RFC4291]is to be revised to allow longer prefix than /64, and state that Subnet-router anycast address MUST be disabled if the prefix length of the link is /127.] I, and I think Dave Thaler too, are saying that the above text is not acceptable because existing IPv6 RFCs can deal with the situation of /127 configured and not invoking anycast data forwarding. Since we said no RFCs need to change, we had to get into router internals to explain how so. This discussion therefore has two paths forward. Either the authors of draft-kohno... remove this text from their document or we continue to discuss why and how existing IETF RFC's take care of the issue at hand. Or a third choice is that the community doesn't care how router internals work and also agree no RFCs need to change and then we have closure to discuss any more internals. Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
