Hi, Bob, Ole, RFC 6164 (/127 on inter-router links) is in fact an update of RFC4291 (IPv6 addressing architecture). Yet, it isn't listed as such in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291. Shouldn't this be fixed?
Regards, RD PS: This point has been noted during the discussion below concerning 4rd CEs and u/g bits of IIDs.: 2013-02-10 04:43, Usman Latif <osma...@yahoo.com> ... > So if I understand it correctly, if a PE-CE link already has a /127 prefix > assigned to it- and we wanted to use the CE as a 4rd CE, we'll have to assign > an additional IPv6 prefix to the CE with 64-bit IIDs? > > Pls share little detail with me in a scenario where a SP already has /127 > with CEs and 4rd is needed from the CE According to RFC 6164, /127 prefixes are used ONLY on inter-router link. They cannot be used as customer-site IPv6 prefixes which, to comply with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.1, MUST permit 64-bit IIDs. Each 4rd CE MUST therefore be delegated at least one IPv6 prefix having at most 64 bits (this doesn't depend on its WAN link having or not a /127). RD
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
