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

Add comment to the section on simple statement regarding routing vs subnet size. please discuss

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Fernando Gont 2017-05-06 09:39:11 +02:00
parent 47db079714
commit 51a9061ad4
1 changed files with 11 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml
View file

@ -121,6 +121,17 @@ don't een need /64 for SLAAC, except for backward compatibility. (*)
<xref target="RFC4862"/>, or Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on <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>
<!-- [fgont] I think these section is mixing up to things:
* Routing: Nodes must *always* support rotuing on any valid length, even if, say, SLAAC is in use.
Even when SLAAC is used, I might want to install a host-specific rule (a /128 rule),
if I please. And I think this point has never been contended (except for vendors that
go lazy/cheap and just don't want to use mre than 64-bits in each FIB entry.
* Subnet size: This is what you're really referring to here. Nodes should be able to employ any
subnet size that they please, except when slaac is in use (for backwards compatibility)
or e.g. when /127 (or the like) prefixes are employed for point to point links.
-->
</section> </section>
<section anchor="notes" title="Notes and Recommendations"> <section anchor="notes" title="Notes and Recommendations">