From fe9c0820f8dc548257ebc974d0f03126e362c928 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Geoff Huston Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 22:26:51 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Update draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml --- draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml | 48 ++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml index 083c7fb..b491d2e 100644 --- a/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml +++ b/draft-nbourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6.xml @@ -35,9 +35,10 @@ Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have - been proposed, maybe the most notable being Top-Level Aggregation + been proposed, with the most notable being Top-Level Aggregation (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers. They have all - proved to be mistakes. The last remnant is a rigid boundary at /64. + proved to be mistakes. The last remnant of classful addressing is + a rigid network / interface identifier boundary at /64. This document removes that boundary as far as routing and addressing are concerned. @@ -65,14 +66,26 @@
Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have - been proposed, maybe the most notable being Top-Level Aggregation + been proposed, with the most notable being Top-Level Aggregation (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers; see, for example, . They have all proved to be mistakes. For example, TLA and NLA were obsoleted by . The last remnant is a rigid boundary at /64. + target="RFC3587"/>. The last remnant of classful addressing is a + rigid network / interface identifier boundary at /64. This document removes that boundary as far as routing and addressing are concerned. + Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing + Architecture, , and the proposed changes in + with respect to the + minimum subnet size. + + Meanwhile, link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, /124, + /120, ... /64 have been successfully deployed for many years. + Having the formal specification be unclear risks potential + mis-implementation by the naïve, which could result in operational + disasters. +
@@ -109,36 +122,23 @@ rate is low enough. formed was no longer bound to layer 2 addresses (MACs) . Therefore their length, previously fixed at 64 bits , is in - fact a free parameter as stated in . + fact a variably-sized parameter as stated in .
-
- - Some confusion has been caused by the IP Version 6 Addressing - Architecture, , and the proposed changes in - with respect to the - minimum subnet size. - - Meanwhile, link prefixes of varied lengths, /127, /126, /124, - /120, ... /64 have been successfully deployed for many years. - Having the formal specification be unclear risks potential - mis-implementation by the naïve, which could result in operational - disasters. - -
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 such as, for example, Stateless Address AutoConfiguration + Standard such as, for example, Stateless Address AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) , or Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links is in use. - Nodes must always support rotuing on any valid length, even if - SLAAC or other standards are in use because routing could choose to - differentiate at a different granularity. + 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.