I'll conclude on the following points: i. The only guidance that's out there today for device loopbacks (whether informational or standards track) is 5375 -because 6164 (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) chose not to provide any considerations for /128 loopbacks
ii. A reader following considerations of /128 from 5375 is led to also consider B.2.4 B.2.6 and B.2.7 for any prefixes where the subnet length is longer than /64 iii. If 6164 overrides any previous RFCs, IMO it should provide some reasoning of why it no longer felt that the sections B.2.4. B.2.6 and B.2.7 of 5375 should be considered Sent from my iPhone On 27/09/2012, at 11:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > Usman, > > On 27/09/2012 12:43, Usman Latif wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> >> RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical >> However, I am looking more from perspective of 5375 > > RFC 5375 is an Informational document. You are at liberty to read it or not, > and to make use of it or not. > > RFC 6164 is a Standards track document. It is of course a voluntary standard > like all IETF standards, but if you claim to implement it, it clearly preempts > an older Informational document such as RFC 5375. > > As SM reminded us, it was probably a mistake that RFC 6164 didn't formally > update RFC 5375, but so what? There are many minor inconsistencies between > RFCs. Please don't lose any sleep over it. As long as you aren't accidentally > running SLAAC on a pt2pt link, none of this matters, as far as I can see. > > Brian > > P.S. I am now adding this thread to my "ietf-silly-subj" filter. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
