Hi,Remi [email protected] 写于 2013-01-29 00:16:32:
> Senthil, > > > 2013-01-2815:24, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) <[email protected]> : > > > I believe the prefix length > 64 should be allowed. > > > > It is upto the > > operator to choose the prefix length of their choice. > > Agreed. > No one suggest to say the contrary. > > Yet, operators have the constraint of RFC 4291 that "For all unicast > addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, > Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed > in Modified EUI-64 format". > > The draft says that: > (a) The PSID is: > +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > |PL| 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 | > +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > |64| u | IPv4 address | PSID | 0 | > +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > (b) "If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most > significant parts of the interface identifier is overwritten by the prefix." > > This is particularly unclear: > - What happens to the u octet? > - And to the IPv4 address if the prefix is longer than /68? Remi, you mean the prefix is longer than /68 or /78? I think /68(64+4) prefix doesn't overwrite IPv4 address. BRs Linda Wang > - ... > > Of course, if a use case is provided where MAP-E would be actually > used with an IID shorter than 64 bits, it should be discussed. But: > - There is no such use case so far. > - Looking for one doesn't seem useful. > > > Regards, > RD > > > > > > On 1/28/13 8:59 AM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > >>>>> The examples in my previous note sort of provided backing for my view > >>>>> that the MAP endpoint IPv6 prefix can be limited to a maximum of a > >>>>> /64, thus making the IID fully conformant both to RFC 4291 and to RFC > >>>>> 6052. > >>>>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think limiting the prefix length to 64 bits is reasonable. Comments? > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that's reasonable. > >>>> and I don't see what it buys us, given that supporting prefix lengths > >>>> longer than 64 is simple. > >>>> IPv6 isn't classfull, there isn't anything magic with the 64 boundary. > >>>> ;-) > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> Ole > >>>> > >>> > >>> OK, then I agree with Rémi. Drop mention of prefixes greater than 64 > >>> bits long and leave it to the reader to judge whether RFC 4291 imposes a > >>> limit. > >> > >> you want this removed: > >> <t>If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most > >> significant parts of the interface identifier is overwritten by the > >> prefix.</t> > >> > >> I disagree. this is the only text in there suggesting to an implementor > >> that prefix lengths can be any value between 0-128. > >> > >> Tom, Remi and I have stated our opinions. does anyone else have a view on > >> the matter? > >> > >> cheers, > >> Ole > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Softwires mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
