IPv6 Routing and its Relationship to the 64-bit Boundary in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-01-06
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
6man Working Group                                             D. Farmer
Internet-Draft                                        Univ. of Minnesota
Updates: 4291 (if approved)                              January 6, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 10, 2019

                  IPv6 Routing and its Relationship to
        the 64-bit Boundary in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
                    draft-farmer-6man-routing-64-02

Abstract

   There is a common misconception that the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
   requires the use of only /64 subnet prefixes for subnet routing.
   This document clarifies the characterization of the relationship
   between IPv6 routing and the 64 bit boundary, which is that of a
   recommendation for the use of /64 subnet prefixes for subnet routing
   in most circumstances, not a requirement for such.  To further
   clarify this relationship, the document also provides operational
   guidance for the configuration of subnet prefixes and updates
   RFC 4291 accordingly.

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 https://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 July 10, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Farmer                    Expires July 10, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    IPv6 Routing and the 64-bit Boundary      January 2019

   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Two Forms of Subnet Prefixes and Interface Identifiers  .   3
     2.2.  How the Two Forms are Used  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Updates to RFC 4291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Operational Guidance for the Configuration of Subnet Prefixes   9
     4.1.  Subnet Prefixes Other Than /64  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291] defines the relationship
   between subnet prefixes and interface identifiers.  Furthermore, it
   effectively defines two forms of subnet prefixes and interface
   identifiers, a general form and a standard form of each, and an
   additional third form of interface identifiers, the Modified EUI-64
   format.

   In their general form subnet prefixes have any length 0 to 128 bits,
   inclusive, and interface identifiers are independent of any specific
   length.  IPv6 routing is based on these general forms, including both
   subnet routing and on-link determination.

   When the IPv6 Addressing Architecture also defines interface
   identifiers as being 64 bits in length, and historically constructed
   in Modified EUI 64 format, it is effectively creating a distinct
   standard form of interface identifiers.  Which also creates a
   distinct standard form of subnet prefixes that are 64 bits in length
   as well.  Autonomous address-configuration and most other aspects of
   the IPv6 specifications assume or depend on these standard forms.

Farmer                    Expires July 10, 2019                 [Page 2]
Show full document text