We usually specify Ipv4 subnet like 255.255.255.0 or /8 so . But in Ipv6
while mentioning address we specify it /64 or /48 .
Does both representation have same meaning ? More specifically i will like
to know whether the Ipv6 subnetting is similar to ipv4 or differs ? Any RFC
or document
Hi Digambar,
At 04:53 PM 12/11/2002 +0530, Digambar Rasal wrote:
We usually specify Ipv4 subnet like 255.255.255.0 or /8 so . But in Ipv6
while mentioning address we specify it /64 or /48 .
As you may already know, a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 is actually
a /24. This means that the first
Digambar Rasal wrote:
We usually specify Ipv4 subnet like 255.255.255.0 or /8 so .
But in Ipv6 while mentioning address we specify it /64 or /48 .
You might lookup the word 'CIDR' or Classless Inter Domain Routing.
In the /x, the x represents the number of bits for the part of the
address
I've always liked draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes-05 (the basic idea is
that site-locals are put in the DNS and it specifies a way for a node to
filter out the site-locals when they shouldn't be used). It can be
extended to the situation of an application on one node sending
addresses to an
I've always liked draft-ietf-ipngwg-site-prefixes-05 (the basic idea is
that site-locals are put in the DNS and it specifies a way for a node to
filter out the site-locals when they shouldn't be used). It can be
extended to the situation of an application on one node sending
addresses to an
agreed. you can't pass around scoped address across
nodes (in general)
as the view of the scope differs between nodes. i have
clearer idea
on link-locals, but i have almost no solutions against
site-locals.
there are security issues associated with it (attacking
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
My point is that I believe that a clean separation should be made
between global addresses and scoped addresses. We fully understand
how globals and link-locals work. All the others are still being
hashed out. If we make this break, the address architecture can
actually I'd claim that we don't really understand how link-locals
work, at least not from the applications viewpoint. but I enthusiastically
support the idea of separating the work on globals from the work
on scoped addresses.
I believe we do have a good understanding on how
i believe we have some clues on application consideration to scoped
addresses.
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because some
people seem to think that scoped addresses are appropriate for use by
general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that
Keith Moore wrote:
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because
some people seem to think that scoped addresses are
appropriate for use by general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that an application can
effectively use
a scoped address in a referral
An implementation note which identifies the need for any multi-party
apps to have a scope determination mechanism before using SL is
appropriate.
no, I'm sorry. It's not. it's insane.
look, it's a separation of function argument. the network's job is to
do best effort delivery SO THE
i believe we have some clues on application consideration to scoped
addresses.
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because some
people seem to think that scoped addresses are appropriate for use by
general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:00:18 +0900,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because some
people seem to think that scoped addresses are appropriate for use by
general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that an application can
Bob,
I went back and re-read the thread you mention below. There is
absolutely no reason why discussion of site-locals couldn't be moved
to the scoped addressing architecture doc. It wouldn't affect the
text needed in the Node Requirements draft and it would put all the
scoped addressing
Date:Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:05:50 -0400
From:Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| What about all the multicast scopes?
Multicast scopes I'm not so sure about, but site local in general
should remain. That works, and is defined just
What do other folks think?
I think we need to all but deprecate scoped addresses except for
a few limited purposes such as autoconfiguration and disconnected
operation. Trying to make them work in a general purpose fashion
places an untenable burden on hosts and applications.
At 10:01 AM 10/11/2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 02:25 PM 10/10/02, Robert Elz wrote:
So would I. The change I would make is to delete all references
of subnet-local from the addr-arch doc, and simply leave those values
as to be defined and then define them in the scoping-arch doc.
This
Brian,
I think this goes to far. We have recently had a long discussion on the
list regarding unicast site-local that concluded with keeping the
definition of unicast site-local addresses in the document (see my email on
21 Jun 2002, titled Consensus on Site-Local Discussion). Part of that
My point is that I believe that a clean separation should be made
between global addresses and scoped addresses. We fully understand
how globals and link-locals work. All the others are still being
hashed out. If we make this break, the address architecture can
move along the
Dave Thaler wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-
v3-10.txt
Dave Thaler wrote:
From: Brian
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The more I think about it, the more I realize that
automagically
creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work.
Especially with multiple prefixes per interface.
Why not? Can you elaborate?
Shouldn't it
Date:Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:18:09 -0700
From:Dave Thaler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It should be fairly obvious by now that I haven't yet read the
scoping-arch doc ... Normally I wouldn't comment about something
I haven't read, my excuse is that
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The more I think about it, the more I realize that automagically
creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work.
Especially with multiple prefixes per interface.
Why not? Can you elaborate?
Shouldn't it always be true that if
Dave Thaler wrote:
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The more I think about it, the more I realize that automagically
creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work.
Especially with multiple prefixes per interface.
Why not? Can you elaborate?
Shouldn't it always
-Original Message-
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-
v3-10.txt
Dave Thaler wrote:
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL
Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| You haven't provided the information that router B would use
| to make that determination.
Brian Haberman provided an
At 02:21 AM 10/7/02, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| You haven't provided the information that router B would use
| to make that determination.
Brian Haberman
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I'm not sure, though, that Brian's explanation is consistent with the
following line in the scoped address architecture:
Each interface belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope.
Based on Brian's explanation, it would seem like the interfaces of
Good catch Margaret. I should have noticed that the example given
actually violates the scoped addressing architecture doc. The
forwarding logic is still correct, but you can only have, at most,
one zone id per scope per interface. Otherwise you would have
overlapping scope zones.
Are you
The more I think about it, the more I realize that automagically
creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work.
Especially with multiple prefixes per interface.
So, this would be consistent with the suggestion that we
change the Addr Arch document to list subnet-local and larger
Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| You haven't provided the information that router B would use
| to make that determination.
Brian Haberman provided an entirely good enough answer
Hi Robert,
And if I have
A - B - C
And A-B is prefix1::/64 and prefix3::/64, and B-C is prefix2::/64 and
prefix3::/64 (prefix1 != prefix2, prefix1 != prefix3, prefix2 != prefix3)
then subnet local multicast packets arriving at B are . ???
You haven't provided
Date:Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700
From:Steve Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: v04220805b9c11bd929d0@[171.71.119.37]
| Every router (whether IPv4 or IPv6) knows what subnets its own interfaces
| belong to (or, more accurately, what subnet numbers are
From: Robert Elz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I also assume that the necessary two implementations of all
of this, that will allow a doc containing it to advance to DS
have been documented in the implementation report?
This draft is up for PS, not DS.
--Brian
Date:Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:14:50 -0700
From:Brian Zill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| This draft is up for PS, not DS.
It is entirely possible I've gotten myself confused here, but Rob Austein's
message that started this thread said ...
I
| Every router (whether IPv4 or IPv6) knows what subnets its own interfaces
| belong to (or, more accurately, what subnet numbers are assigned to
| the links to which it has interfaces). That is the most basic
| configuration info provided to a router -- it is provided with that
Hi Brian,
Just to clarify...
The subnet-local multicast scope is defined in the Addressing
Architecture document, which been sent to the IESG for
consideration as a draft standard.
Perhaps the mention of scoping has you thinking of the scoped
addressing architecture? That hasn't been sent to
To: Brian Zill
Cc: Robert Elz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt
Hi Brian,
Just to clarify...
The subnet-local multicast scope is defined in the Addressing
Architecture document, which been sent to the IESG
I made the mistake of allowing my arm to be twisted into reviewing
draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt last week, and was sad to find
what appears to be an ambiguity in some of text that deals with
subnet-scope multicast. Given that this document was already before
the IESG at the time I found
Rob,
The subnet-scope is delineated in the same manner as the scopes
6,7,8,9... That is, a router maintains a scope zone id per interface.
So, if I have a router that has interfaces 1,2,3, 4 and the admin
assigns a subnet-local scope zone id of 100 to interfaces 2 and 4,
then 2 and 4 are
.
As part of the AD/chair discussion, I responded to Thomas's report of
the issue as follows:
To: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Steve Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt
Cc: Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED], Margaret
At Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:35:37 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
The subnet-scope is delineated in the same manner as the scopes
6,7,8,9... That is, a router maintains a scope zone id per interface.
So, if I have a router that has interfaces 1,2,3, 4 and the admin
assigns a subnet-local
At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700, Steve Deering wrote:
In a response to that message, Rob asked me if I had forgotten about
unnumbered point-to-point links. I answered as follows:
Yes, I did forget about them, but I think it's obvious how to handle them:
they are not part of a subnet
At 6:11 PM -0400 10/2/02, Rob Austein wrote:
At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700, Steve Deering wrote:
In a response to that message, Rob asked me if I had forgotten about
unnumbered point-to-point links. I answered as follows:
Yes, I did forget about them, but I think it's obvious how
At 6:07 PM -0400 10/2/02, Rob Austein wrote:
The key phrase in your explanation is the admin assigns. The
addr-arch doc says admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must
be administratively configured. So which is it?
You omitted the full description:
admin-local scope is
At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:08:34 -0700, Steve Deering wrote:
At 6:07 PM -0400 10/2/02, Rob Austein wrote:
The key phrase in your explanation is the admin assigns. The
addr-arch doc says admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must
be administratively configured. So which is it?
You
Rob Austein wrote:
At Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:35:37 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
The subnet-scope is delineated in the same manner as the scopes
6,7,8,9... That is, a router maintains a scope zone id per interface.
So, if I have a router that has interfaces 1,2,3, 4 and the admin
At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700, Steve Deering wrote:
Here is a suggestion:
1) change the wording of the subnet-local definition to say something
like:
subnet-local scope is given a different and larger value
than link-local to enable possible support
At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:55:51 -0700, Steve Deering wrote:
Either we're talking about the case where multilink subnets are not
employed (no need to believe in them), in which case my statement
holds.
Right.
Or we are venturing into the oh-so-scary land of multilink subnets,
in which case
49 matches
Mail list logo
