On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, 08:24 Robert Raszuk, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ron, > > I disagree. > > Your suggestion violates longest prefix match principle in routing. > > It is huge waist of address space and is not specific to IPv6 at all. > > Let me describe the deployment case where your suggestion would cause it > to break: > > I have /64 prefix where a few /128s from that space I allocate to local > interfaces making it a local v6 destinations on those nodes. > > However in the spirit of CIDR I still want to to use some blocks of that > space - say /126 or /124 as blocks which I only use to trigger local NAT > as per rfc6296. >
Realise that RFC6296 is Experimental, and therefore nothing standard track can rely on it. Don't use NAT. IPv6 is pointless if you do. RFC2993 - Architectural Implications of NAT *https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2993 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2993>* The Touble with NAT - APNIC blog articles https://blog.apnic.net/2016/10/25/trouble-nat-part-1/ https://blog.apnic.net/2016/10/26/trouble-nat-part-2/ https://blog.apnic.net/2016/10/27/trouble-nat-part-3/ And NAT does not require local address to be a destination address so it > would be a big disservice to kill such deployment option. > > Many thx, > R. > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 10:59 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> >> >> I think that we need a global rule that says: >> >> >> >> “With a /64, if one /128 represents an IPv6 interface, as described in >> RFC 4291, all /128 MUST either: >> >> >> >> - Represent an IPv6 interface, as described in RFC 4291, or >> - Be unassigned” >> >> >> >> The 6man WG will need to make such a statement since it owns RFC 4291. >> >> >> >> Ron >> > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
