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

minor suggestions, updated a reference

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
becarpenter 2017-05-10 17:04:38 +12:00
parent 16a9d610fc
commit 28578623cf
1 changed files with 9 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
View file

@ -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"?>
@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
<t>Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing <t>Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture, <xref target="RFC4291"/>, and the proposed changes in Architecture, <xref target="RFC4291"/>, and the proposed changes in
<xref target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"/> with respect to the <xref target="I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis"/> with respect to the
minimum subnet size.</t> minimum subnet size.</t>
<t>Meanwhile, link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, /124, <t>Meanwhile, link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, /124,
@ -100,7 +100,8 @@
<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.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis"/> and RFC2464
<xref target="I-D.hinden-6man-rfc2464bis"/>, 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>
@ -132,9 +133,10 @@ rate is low enough.
<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 that has nothing to do with routing may impose a
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"/> is in use.</t> Inter-Router Links <xref target="RFC6164"/>.</t>
<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
@ -252,7 +254,8 @@ 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"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.hinden-6man-rfc4291bis"?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.hinden-6man-rfc2464bis"?>
</references> </references>
</back> </back>