(Correcting the Subject header) That could be reported as an erratum against RFC 6164.
Regards Brian On 11/02/2013 10:13, Rémi Després wrote: > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
