Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > I get a bit confused by the way your mail agent doesn't distinguish > new and old text, but in line...
Well, there isn't any old text in it, rather there are quotes from the document!
brian> Toerless explained elsewhere why he thinks the duplication is
brian> needed.
I read that after my email.
I simply can't agree.
>> ====== section 11
>> This document may be considered to be updating the IPv6 addressing
>> architecture ([RFC4291]) and/or the Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
>> addresses ([RFC4193]) depending on how strict specific statements in
>>
>> I don't like this statement. Either it violates the spec, and updates
it, or
>> it does not. I do not think that it violates. This is not a multi-link
>> subnet, this is a prefix that is not on-link.
brian> As readers of the 6man list know, this has been a very contentious
topic.
brian> I think it's safer to duck it in the ACP draft: say what we do, but
say
brian> nothing about RFC4291 etc.
I agree.
>> It is possible, that this scheme constitutes an update to RFC4191
>> because the same 64 bit subnet prefix is used across many ACP
>> devices. The ACP Zone addressing Sub-Scheme is very similar to the
>> common operational practices of assigning /128 loopback addresses to
>> network devices from the same /48 or /64 subnet prefix.
>>
>> It does not. Brian? Do you concur?
> Put it this way. The ACP doesn't assign ULAs using DHCPv6. It doesn't
assign
> them using SLAAC. It doesn't use conventionally sized /64 subnets. So in
that
> sense it is like RFC 6164 ("Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router
Links").
> But we don't need to apologise. As you say, we're simply assigning /128
> addresses to (virtual) interfaces using our own scheme. And we're relying
> on BCP 198 (RFC 7608) which says that routing prefixes can be any length
> up to /128. If you want to cite anything, cite RFC 7608.
Toerless, do you want text to say this?
draft> The goal for the 8 or 16-bit addresses available to an ACP device in
draft> this scheme is to assign them as required to software components,
draft> which in autonomic networking are called ASA (Autonomic Service
mcr> We are not providing 8-bit or 16-bit IIDs.
mcr> We are providing 256 or 65536 /128 addresses which are conveniently
mcr> aggregated for routing purposes.
draft> In practical terms, the ACP should be enabled to create from its /8
draft> or /16 prefix one or more device internal virtual subnets and to
draft> start software components connected to those virtual subnets.
mcr> No, don't say this, and don't do this in practice. Create /128 routes
to LL
mcr> address of the internal VM and configure the /128 as a loopback address
mcr> inside the VM.
brian> So yes, I concur with Michael.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
