org] On Behalf Of
> > Mark Smith
> > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:12 AM
> > To: Thomas Narten
> > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
> >
> >
> > >I think the Addressing Architecture RFC would need to be
n
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>
>
> >I think the Addressing Architecture RFC would need to be changed, as it
> >stipulates 64 bit interface ids, which I think implies a maximum of 64
> >bit prefix lengths, unless these /12
Mark,
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark Smith
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:12 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>I think the Addressing Architecture RFC would n
, 2010 10:24 AM
> To: Ben Jencks; Thomas Narten
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>
> Oh, I am still on US EST time zone and waking up in the middle of the
> night in Beijing. Please see in line below.
>
> -Original Messag
; To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>
>
>>I'd like to hear from a router vendor on the impact of this on TCAM
>>design. I'm under the (possibly mistaken) impression that frequently
>>only the first 64 bit
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
>I'd like to hear from a router vendor on the impact of this on TCAM
>design. I'm under the (possibly mistaken) impression that frequently
>only the first 64 bits are allocated space in the TCAM. If you need to
>ro
Erik Nordmark writes:
> While some implementations of RFC 4861/62 might make assumptions about
> /64 being magic, there isn't anything in those RFCs that specify that it
> is magic. RFC 4862 merely says that the sum of the length of the link
> prefix and the interface identifier needs to be 12
On 11/ 7/10 11:29 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Note: I am quite aware that stateless addr autoconfiguration uses
64-bit Interface Identifiers (IIDs) and that the addressing
architecture says that addresses need to be formed using IIDs. However
these requirements relate to the formation of addresses.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 14:29, Thomas Narten wrote:
> The document currently says:
>
> Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
> point inter-router links.
>
> I fully support this.
>
> However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6 continues
> to be based
Hi Thomas,
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:29:16 -0500
Thomas Narten wrote:
> The document currently says:
>
>Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
>point inter-router links.
>
> I fully support this.
>
> However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6
Hi Thomas,
* Thomas Narten
> The document currently says:
>
> Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
> point inter-router links.
>
> I fully support this.
>
> However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6
> continues to be based on CIDR. There is noth
> However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6 continues
> to be based on CIDR. There is nothing special about the 64 boundary
> from a routing perspective.
and, to be pedantic but very purposfully specific, a forwarding
perspective
> I'd like to hear from operators as to whether
> > I do not see any reason to restrict implementations to only supporting
> > /127s prefixes.
> >
> > Thoughts? In particular, I'd like to hear from operators as to whether
> > they want the functionality of being able to assign subnets of
> > arbitrary length, or whether it would be sufficient to
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> The document currently says:
>
> Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
> point inter-router links.
>
> I fully support this.
>
> However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6 continues
> to be ba
14 matches
Mail list logo
