Hi Ron, /64 prefix is a pile of addresses ... if someone would be to follow your suggestion I could not allocate some blocks of that prefix on R1, then some other blocks on R2 then yet more on my servers.
You said: *“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”* Maybe you meant to say something else: *“When a /64 is used as SRv6 locator prefix, 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”* But then you sent this to SPRINT indicating that 6MAN should be the audience :). Best, R. On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:45 AM Ron Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > > > I’m having a hard time understanding exactly how I have violated the > longest match principle. Could you provide: > > > > - A pointer to a statement of the longest match principle > - A few words regarding how I have violated it > > > > 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 <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 > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
