On 9/20/2011 2:03 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 20 sep 2011, at 9:58, [email protected] wrote:
For pt2pt SDH links you want /127 to avoid the ping-pong problem,
not /126.
That's nice (as long as your routers ignore the all zeros anycast address), but
the question was: how do we write down IPv6 prefixes? Are we ok with simply
leaving off the undefined part, or do we insist on proper inclusion of the
zeros? If the former, how do we avoid ambiguity for prefixes such as ::ffff/96?
I agree it is ambiguous in some sense. That is, I expect any reasonable
implementation to treat ::ffff/96 as ending in ffff, and being
equivalent to ::/96.
However, for us humans, why would you write ::ffff/96 and not ::/96? I
think one can pretty much expect that the bits beyond the prefix length
are 0 when writing prefixes.
I don't see a big deal with using ::ffff/96 as a sloppy notation on
whiteboards etc. But for documents like Internet Drafts and RFCs, we
should probably make sure to write the trailing 0s.
I myself having got some pushback for writing e.g. 239/8. Even though
it is not ambiguous.
Stig
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
