1 / 6

Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-02.txt

Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-02.txt. - revised presentation -. Miya Kohno, Juniper Networks, Keio Univ. Becca Nitzan, Juniper Networks Randy Bush, IIJ Yoshinobu Matsuzaki, IIJ Lorenzo Colitti, Google

odina
Download Presentation

Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-02.txt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Linksdraft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-02.txt - revised presentation - Miya Kohno, Juniper Networks, Keio Univ. Becca Nitzan, Juniper Networks Randy Bush, IIJ Yoshinobu Matsuzaki, IIJ Lorenzo Colitti, Google Contributors: Chris Morrow, Pekka Savola, Remi Despres, Thomas Narten

  2. Scope of the draft • Inter-router point-to-point links • Numbered addressing is used (not Link-local-only). • Only two routers and no hosts are attached on the link • “link” include tunnels • Physical media can be anything: • Ethernet • SONET/SDH

  3. Motivation Revisited • The use of /127 is a current operational practice • Yoshinobu Matsuzaki @IIJ, APNIC26 (August 2008) http://archive.apnic.net/meetings/26/program/apops/matsuzaki-ipv6-p2p.pdf • Lorenzo Colitti & Angus Lees @Google, IETF72 IPv6 plenary (July 2008) http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/72/slides/plenaryw-4.pdf • It parallels the use of /31 in IPv4 [RFC3021] • It’s a simple solution for preventing possible security vulnerabilities, e.g. ping-pong (SONET/SDH), neighbor cache exhaustion (Ethernet), etc.

  4. Why /127 was regarded as harmful ? • Solely because it conflicts with Subnet-Router anycast addressing! • RFC4291 defines Subnet-Router anycast address, which is intended to be used to communicate with any one set of routers • RFC3627 indicated that the use of /127 was harmful, based on the condition that Subnet-Router anycast address was a mandatory requirement. • But it’s questionable if the anycast address is meaningful for inter-router point-to-point links.

  5. The requirement • To use /127 needs to be supported by IETF and the industry. .1 .0 2001:db8:aaaa::/127 2001:db8:bbbb::/127 .0 .1 .0 .1 2001:db8:cccc::/127

  6. The discussion in 6man IETF78 • “off-link” model should apply for the requirement. • Don’t need to modify the existing addressing architecture. *”off-link” - an address that is not assigned to any interfaces on the specified link (rfc4861) • Can the use of /127 be in the category of “off-link” ? 2001:db8:aaaa::0/127 2001:db8:aaaa::1/127

More Related