Please kindly correct me if I am wrong, but where do you see that SRv6 is mandated to use "IPv6 Interface IDs" ?
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 11:00 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's stated twice in section 2.5 of RFC4291. > > For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary > value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be > constructed in Modified EUI-64 format. > > > All Global Unicast addresses other than those that start with binary > 000 have a 64-bit interface ID field (i.e., n + m = 64), formatted as > described in Section 2.5.1 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.1>. Global > Unicast addresses that start with > binary 000 have no such constraint on the size or structure of the > interface ID field. > > > Please also see RFC7421, Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 > Addressing. > > > > > > > On Sun, 10 Oct 2021, 07:27 Robert Raszuk, <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > >> > Hi Brian, >>> > >>> >> Which means: 64 bits. >>> > >>> > Sorry but what is so magic about /64 here ? >>> >>> It is mandated by the current IPv6 addressing architecture. >> >> >> Really ? Where ? I am looking at RFC4291 and nowhere I can find /64 >> reference. >> >> Moreover sections 2.4 and 2.5 are very clear that there is no magic /64 >> hard defined. >> >> The text actually goes even further and says: >> >> Except for the knowledge of the subnet boundary discussed in the >> previous paragraphs, nodes should not make any assumptions about the >> structure of an IPv6 address. >> >> >> Thx, >> >> R. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Despite many discussions, there has never been consensus to change it. >>> So if /64 is not the boundary between the routeable part and the >>> host-specific part, it's not IPv6. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> > >>> > Is this coming from the longest routable IPv6 prefix ? Sort of analogy >>> to /24 in the IPv4 world ? Or something else ? >>> > >>> > I think LPM and CIDR techniques are pretty well established. >>> > >>> > Any fixed length of the address block with the meaning - do not use >>> those bits inter or intra domain for anything useful even if your >>> prefix+node can happily fit in /32 seems just dead wrong to me. And that is >>> irrespective of any SRv6 discussion. >>> > >>> > In my books if I get allocated say /48 or /40 from RIR what I do with >>> the remaining bits is my own business. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > R. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Sorry, but it is a little bit late – RFC 8986 is already >>> published. >>> > >>> > "Locators are assigned consistent with IPv6 infrastructure >>> allocation." >>> > >>> > Which means: 64 bits. >>> > >>> > I have no time to study compressed SIDs, but if they trample on >>> the >>> LOC they are not IPv6 addresses. >>> > >>> > Brian >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> > i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org> >>> > Administrative Requests: >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> i...@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
