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

24
draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
View file

@ -78,6 +78,9 @@
risk of mis-implementation, which can easily result in serious
operational problems.</t>
<t>This document also clarifies that IPv6 routing subnets may be of any
length up to 128.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="reading" title="Suggested Reading">
@ -130,20 +133,19 @@ rate is low enough.
</t>
</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
of any valid length up to 128 except for links where an Internet
Standard that has nothing to do with routing may impose a
particular length. Examples are Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
<t>IPv6 unicast interfaces may use any subnet length up to 128 except
for situations where an Internet Standard document may impose a
particular length, for example Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
(SLAAC) <xref target="RFC4862"/>, or Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on
Inter-Router Links <xref target="RFC6164"/>.</t>
<t>Nodes must always support routing on any valid network prefix
length, even if SLAAC or other standards are in use, because routing
could choose to differentiate at a different granularity than is
used by any such automated link local address configuration
tools.</t>
<t>Additionally, this document clarifies that a node or router MUST
support routing of any valid network prefix length, even if SLAAC or
other standards are in use, because routing could choose to
differentiate at a different granularity than is used by any such
automated link local address configuration tools.</t>
<!-- [fgont] I think these section is mixing up to things:
@ -177,7 +179,7 @@ rate is low enough.
hard-coded, and to favor portability of devices and operating
systems.</t>
<t>None the less, there is no reason in theory why an IPv6 node
<t>Nonetheless, there is no reason in theory why an IPv6 node
should not operate with different interface identfier lengths on
different physical interfaces. Thus, a correct implementation of
SLAAC must in fact allow for any prefix length, with the value being