Home
Vendor
Project
  Phase I
Press
  Phase I
About
You Are Using IPv4 To Access This Site
Your IP Address is: 38.103.63.61

RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Attachment view

From: Robert J. Rockell (rrockell@sprint.net)
Date: 10/15/03


moonv6 post from "Robert J. Rockell" <rrockell@sprint.net> Understood. We know that if we leave holes open, people will use them to invalidate our testing. Taking the most conservative approach, imho, will give us the best credibility when we release our results.

Thanks
Rob Rockell
SprintLink
(+1) 703-689-6322
It's just a little pin prick...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:

->Robert,
->
->This is good input to our thinking and important. I can live with /64.
->
->What I am more concerned about on this list now is an invalid
->interpretation by Alain of EUI-64 technically regarding use for our
->processes? If it is invalid I want that stated and if it is valid then
->I want that stated. So now I am more concerned that we all agree on
->this section of 3315.
->
->But if we move to /64 I will support what you and other providers state
->as you know best in my opinion. I also support RIR using /64
->completely. The idea here was to be conservative and I agree with Ben
->on initial approach if the providers are ok with not worrying about that
->and the mail list I am fine with that completely as one technical input
->data point on the list. But it is important we interpret the specs
->correctly on Moonv6 too.
->
->Thanks
->/jim
->
->> -----Original Message-----
->> From: Robert J. Rockell [mailto:rrockell@sprint.net]
->> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:36 AM
->> To: Bound, Jim
->> Cc: Alain Durand; moonv6@iol.unh.edu
->> Subject: RE: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH
->>
->>
->> If you want to test interoperabilty with
->> best-common-practices (in the grammatical sense of the
->> phrase, not the IETF one) then you need to look at
->> /64's. This is the way the majority of the 6bone is
->> numbered. I don't see
->> motivation for /120. If you are going to just pick a random
->> netwmask, use /127, to save space, on all p2p links. the
->> notion of reserved and broadcast on a p2p link have changed,
->> after all...
->>
->> I can tell you from a provider standpoint, we ALWAYS use /64.
->> Personal opinions on whether or not this is needed/smart
->> aside, this is how things get deployed. I would recommend
->> consistency, if you want to maximize impact of your testing.
->>
->>
->> Thanks
->> Rob Rockell
->> SprintLink
->> (+1) 703-689-6322
->> It's just a little pin prick...
->> --------------------------------------------------------------
->> ---------
->>
->> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
->>
->> ->moonv6 post from "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
->> ->Folks,
->> ->
->> ->I would like to make something clear as we have this discussion.
->> ->
->> ->This is not an IETF issue other than IETF can help with
->> interpretation
->> ->of the standard though I await Alain's response as I see no
->> spec issue
->> ->here at all per his mail with /120.
->> ->
->> ->But the IETF has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT MOONV6 DEPLOYMENT OR
->> OPERATIONS.
 ->> ->NOTHING AT ALL. They are a standards body we are an implementation
->> ->deployment body.
->> ->
->> ->Thanks
->> ->/jim
->> ->
->> ->> -----Original Message-----
->> ->> From: Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
->> ->> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:51 PM
->> ->> To: moonv6@iol.unh.edu
->> ->> Subject: [moonv6] /120 prefix length at UNH
->> ->>
->> ->>
->> ->> moonv6 post from Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
->> ->> From what our engineer reported from UNH tests,
->> ->> the plan on record is to use /120 prefixes for
->> ->> the backbone links at UNH.
->> ->>
->> ->> This would be a violation of RFC 3513, section 2.5.1.
->> ->>
->> ->> I'm concerned that if this network setup gets published,
->> ->> it would set up a dangerous precedent.
->> ->>
->> ->> - Alain.
->> ->>
->> ->>
->> ->> 2.5.1 Interface Identifiers
->> ->>
->> ->> Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to
->> ->> identify
->> ->> interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique
->> within a
->> ->> subnet
->> ->> prefix. It is recommended that the same interface identifier
->> ->> not be
->> ->> assigned to different nodes on a link. They may also
->> be unique
->> ->> over
->> ->> a broader scope. In some cases an interface's
->> identifier will be
->> ->> derived directly from that interface's link-layer
->> address. The
->> ->> same
->> ->> interface identifier may be used on multiple interfaces on a
->> ->> single
->> ->> node, as long as they are attached to different subnets.
->> ->>
->> ->> Note that the uniqueness of interface identifiers is
->> independent
->> ->> of
->> ->> the uniqueness of IPv6 addresses. For example, a
->> global unicast
->> ->> address may be created with a non-global scope interface
->> ->> identifier
->> ->> and a site-local address may be created with a global scope
->> ->> interface
->> ->> identifier.
->> ->>
->> ->> For all unicast addresses, except those that start
->> with binary
->> ->> value
->> ->> 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
->> ->> constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
->> ->>
->> ->>
->> ->
->>
->>
->

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 12/01/06 EST