minor suggestions
This commit is contained in:
parent
9765faf9e1
commit
2644afab2b
1 changed files with 34 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
||||||
<?xml version="1.0"?>
|
<?xml version="1.0"?>
|
||||||
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
|
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
|
||||||
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
|
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
|
||||||
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
|
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
|
||||||
|
|
@ -97,12 +97,30 @@
|
||||||
not apply to IPv6; but the arguments for operational flexibility in
|
not apply to IPv6; but the arguments for operational flexibility in
|
||||||
address allocation remain compelling.</t>
|
address allocation remain compelling.</t>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<<<<<< HEAD
|
||||||
|
<t>It is also assumed that the reader understands IPv6, <xref
|
||||||
|
target="RFC2460"/>, IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture, see <xref
|
||||||
|
target="RFC4291"/>, and the proposed changes to RFC4291 <xref
|
||||||
|
target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/>
|
||||||
|
and RFC2464 <xref target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc2464bis"/>.</t>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<t>NOTE: do we mean 4291bis (currently moribund) or 2464bis?</t>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<t>An important recent development in IPv6 is that for host
|
||||||
|
computers on local area networks, the way in which interface
|
||||||
|
identifiers are formed is no longer bound to layer 2 addresses (MAC
|
||||||
|
addresses) <xref target="RFC7217"/>. We can therefore appreciate
|
||||||
|
that their length, previously fixed at 64 bits <xref
|
||||||
|
target="RFC7136"/>, is in fact a free parameter as stated in <xref
|
||||||
|
target="RFC4862"/>.</t>
|
||||||
|
=======
|
||||||
<t>It is also assumed that the reader understands IPv6 <xref
|
<t>It is also assumed that the reader understands IPv6 <xref
|
||||||
target="RFC2460"/>, the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture <xref
|
target="RFC2460"/>, the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture <xref
|
||||||
target="RFC4291"/>, the proposed changes to RFC4291 <xref
|
target="RFC4291"/>, the proposed changes to RFC4291 <xref
|
||||||
target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/>, and the recent
|
target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/>, and the recent
|
||||||
recommendations for the generation of stable Interface Identifiers
|
recommendations for the generation of stable Interface Identifiers
|
||||||
<xref target="RFC8064"/>.</t>
|
<xref target="RFC8064"/>.</t>
|
||||||
|
>>>>>>> origin/master
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<!--
|
<!--
|
||||||
<t>NOTE: do we mean 4291bis (currently moribund) or 2464bis?</t>
|
<t>NOTE: do we mean 4291bis (currently moribund) or 2464bis?</t>
|
||||||
|
|
@ -130,11 +148,22 @@ rate is low enough.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<section anchor="simple" title="A simple Statement">
|
<section anchor="simple" title="A simple Statement">
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<<<<<<< HEAD
|
||||||
|
<t>To state it simply, IPv6 unicast routing 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
|
||||||
|
<xref target="RFC4862"/>, or Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on
|
||||||
|
Inter-Router Links <xref target="RFC6164"/>.</t>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
</section>
|
||||||
|
=======
|
||||||
<t>To state it simply, IPv6 unicast subnetting is based on prefixes
|
<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
|
of any valid length up to 128 except for links where an Internet
|
||||||
Standard such as, for example, Stateless Address AutoConfiguration
|
Standard such as, for example, 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"/> is in use.</t>
|
Inter-Router Links <xref target="RFC6164"/> is in use.</t>
|
||||||
|
>>>>>>> origin/master
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<t>Nodes must always support routing on any valid network prefix
|
<t>Nodes must always support routing on any valid network prefix
|
||||||
length, even if SLAAC or other standards are in use, because routing
|
length, even if SLAAC or other standards are in use, because routing
|
||||||
|
|
@ -252,6 +281,10 @@ rate is low enough.
|
||||||
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7707"?>
|
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7707"?>
|
||||||
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7136"?>
|
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7136"?>
|
||||||
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7721"?>
|
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7721"?>
|
||||||
|
<<<<<<< HEAD
|
||||||
|
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.hinden-6man-rfc2464bis"?>
|
||||||
|
=======
|
||||||
|
>>>>>>> origin/master
|
||||||
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"?>
|
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"?>
|
||||||
</references>
|
</references>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue