draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-01.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-02.txt 
v6ops Working Group M. Boucadair v6ops Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft France Telecom Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Best Current Practice A. Petrescu Intended status: Best Current Practice A. Petrescu
Expires: August 17, 2015 CEA, LIST Expires: October 22, 2015 CEA, LIST
F. Baker F. Baker
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
February 13, 2015 April 20, 2015
IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding
draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-01 draft-ietf-v6ops-cidr-prefix-02
Abstract Abstract
IPv6 prefix length, as in IPv4, is a parameter conveyed and used in IPv6 prefix length, as in IPv4, is a parameter conveyed and used in
IPv6 routing and forwarding processes in accordance with the IPv6 routing and forwarding processes in accordance with the
Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) architecture. The length of an Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) architecture. The length of an
IPv6 prefix may be any number from zero to 128, although subnets IPv6 prefix may be any number from zero to 128, although subnets
using stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for address using stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) for address
allocation conventionally use a /64 prefix. Hardware and software allocation conventionally use a /64 prefix. Hardware and software
algorithms should therefore impose no rules on prefix length, but implementations of routing and forwarding should therefore impose no
implement longest-match-first on prefixes of any valid length. rules on prefix length, but implement longest-match-first on prefixes
of any valid length.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
This document does not introduce security issues in addition to what This document does not introduce security issues in addition to what
is discussed in [RFC4291]. is discussed in [RFC4291].
IPv6 security issues, including operational ones, are discussed in IPv6 security issues, including operational ones, are discussed in
[RFC4942] and [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6]. [RFC4942] and [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6].
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Eric Vyncke, Christian Jacquenet, Brian Carpenter, Fernando Thanks to Eric Vyncke, Christian Jacquenet, Brian Carpenter, Fernando
Gont, Tatuya Jinmei, Lorenzo Colitti, Ross Chandler, and David Farmer Gont, Tatuya Jinmei, Lorenzo Colitti, Ross Chandler, David Farmer,
for their contributions and comments. and David Black for their contributions and comments.
Special thanks to Randy Bush for his support. Special thanks to Randy Bush for his support.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
skipping to change at page 4, line 35 skipping to change at page 4, line 35
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-opsec-v6] [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6]
Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Vyncke, "Operational Chittimaneni, K., Kaeo, M., and E. Vyncke, "Operational
Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", draft-ietf- Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", draft-ietf-
opsec-v6-05 (work in progress), October 2014. opsec-v6-06 (work in progress), March 2015.
[RFC1380] Gross, P. and P. Almquist, "IESG Deliberations on Routing [RFC1380] Gross, P. and P. Almquist, "IESG Deliberations on Routing
and Addressing", RFC 1380, November 1992. and Addressing", RFC 1380, November 1992.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/