Robert,
If you don't segregate addresses that represent address from addresses that
don't represent addresses, how will IPv6 Neighbor Discovery be impacted?
Ron
From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 5:24 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: SPRING WG List <[email protected]>
Subject: IPv6 Addresses and SIDs
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. 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
<[email protected]<mailto:[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
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
