randy/draft-classless6
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

refactor formal statement

Browse source 
- clarify that there are two cases
  - interface subnetting is now classless
  - routing prefixes were always classless, but this is now explicitly stated
This commit is contained in:
Nick Hilliard 2017-05-14 12:27:08 +01:00
parent cb1a987e43
commit 06cb09405c
1 changed files with 13 additions and 11 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

22
draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
View file

@ -78,6 +78,9 @@
risk of mis-implementation, which can easily result in serious risk of mis-implementation, which can easily result in serious
operational problems.</t> operational problems.</t>
<t>This document also clarifies that IPv6 routing subnets may be of any
length up to 128.</t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="reading" title="Suggested Reading"> <section anchor="reading" title="Suggested Reading">
@ -130,20 +133,19 @@ rate is low enough.
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="simple" title="A simple Statement"> <section anchor="statement" title="Identifier and Subnet Length Statements">
<t>To state it simply, IPv6 unicast subnetting is based on prefixes <t>IPv6 unicast interfaces may use any subnet length up to 128 except
of any valid length up to 128 except for links where an Internet for situations where an Internet Standard document may impose a
Standard that has nothing to do with routing may impose a particular length, for example Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
particular length. Examples are Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
(SLAAC) <xref target="RFC4862"/>, or Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on (SLAAC) <xref target="RFC4862"/>, or Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on
Inter-Router Links <xref target="RFC6164"/>.</t> Inter-Router Links <xref target="RFC6164"/>.</t>
<t>Nodes must always support routing on any valid network prefix <t>Additionally, this document clarifies that a node or router MUST
length, even if SLAAC or other standards are in use, because routing support routing of any valid network prefix length, even if SLAAC or
could choose to differentiate at a different granularity than is other standards are in use, because routing could choose to
used by any such automated link local address configuration differentiate at a different granularity than is used by any such
tools.</t> automated link local address configuration tools.</t>
<!-- [fgont] I think these section is mixing up to things: <!-- [fgont] I think these section is mixing up to things: