IPv6 is Classless
draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-05-22
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Internet Initiative Japan
Updates: 4291 (if approved) B. Carpenter
Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland
Expires: November 23, 2017 F. Gont
SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
N. Hilliard
INEX
G. Huston
APNIC
C. Morrow
GOOG
J. Snijders
NTT
May 22, 2017
IPv6 is Classless
draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Abstract
Over the history of IPv6, various classful address models have been
proposed, none of which has withstood the test of time. The last
remnant of IPv6 classful addressing is a rigid network interface
identifier boundary at /64. This document removes the fixed position
of that boundary for interface addressing.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2017.
Bush, et al. Expires November 23, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 is Classless May 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Identifier and Subnet Length Statements . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Over the history of the IPv6 protocol, several classful addressing
models have been proposed. The most notable example recommended Top-
Level Aggregation (TLA) and Next-Level Aggregation (NLA) Identifiers
[RFC2450], but was obsoleted by [RFC3587], leaving a single remnant
of classful addressing in IPv6: a rigid network interface identifier
boundary at /64. This document removes the fixed position of that
boundary for interface addressing.
Recent proposed changes to the IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
specification [RFC4291] have caused controversy. While link prefixes
of varied lengths, e.g. /127, /126, /124, /120, ... /64 have been
successfully deployed for many years, glaring mismatches between a
formal specification and long-standing field deployment practices are
never wise, not least because of the strong risk of mis-
implementation, which can easily result in serious operational
problems.
Bush, et al. Expires November 23, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 is Classless May 2017
This document also clarifies that IPv6 routing subnets may be of any
Show full document text