Subject: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the Addressing Plans

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:55:41 +0800

Hi all,

We have submitted before yesterday a new draft, it seems is still not
available at the IETF repository, but meanwhile, the document can be reached
at:
http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-point2point-00.txt

Comments welcome !

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:05:55 +0000

Hi Jordi,

I think this draft is covered as one section of the Address Assignment 
Considerations draft that Gunter submitted last week?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandevelde-v6ops-addcon-00.txt

Tim

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:31:49 +0800

Hi Tim,

Not sure if it is the same, to be honest didn't saw it before. I will take a
look.

I've prepared this in December, when working with a customer, but didn't
wanted to submit it until we had the time to try with different routing
protocols, which we did only last week.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:05:55 +0000
> Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Guidelines for Numbering IPv6 Point-to-Point Links and Easing the
> Addressing Plans
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Tim/::1
> 
> 
>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:56:05 +0000

> protocols, which we did only last week.

The aim of Gunter's draft is to give guidance for one of the most common
questions that seems to come up at the moment, i.e. 'OK, I'm deploying IPv6,
but what addressing plan should I use and what addressing gotchas are there 
that I need to avoid?'

What we've done in the first draft of that is to create a strawman text
for discussion in Dallas.   Point to point discussion is one facet of the
draft, but there are many others.   I've not yet formed an opinion on the
idea in your draft, but it seems it could be captured as one part of this
bigger 'considerations' draft.

Tim

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:15:45 +0900

> http://www.consulintel.euro6ix.org/ietf/draft-palet-v6ops-point2point-00.txt

   3.  Numbering Interfaces

   Often, in point-to-point links, hardware tokens are not available, so
   frequently they are manually numbered sequentially with most of the
   bits cleared to zero.  This also match the need to keep certain bits
   (u, g) cleared.  This numbering makes as well easier to remember the
   interfaces, which typically will become numbered as 1 (with 63

point to point links, even though they don't have L2 addresses, do
have link-local addresses. I don't know of any implementation which
requires you to manually configure these. typically the implementation
reuses a link-local from an interface with a L2 address.

   4.  Routing Aggregation of the Point-to-Point Links

   Following this approach and assuming that a shorter prefix is
   typically delegated to a customer, in general a /48 [4], it is
   possible to simplify the routing aggregation of the point-to-point
   links.  Towards this, the point-to-point link may be numbered using
   the first /64 of a given /48.

using the first (or any) subnet of a larger prefix, breaks the
conceptual model of DHCP prefix delegation. the prefix is delegated to
the requesting router and cannot be used to number the link between
the delegating and requesting router.

cheers,
Ole

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 01:08:10 +0800

Hi Ole,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:15:45 +0900
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

I believe I taken most of this text from the IPv6 addressing document. Even
if that's not correct (meaning that you have always L2 addresses), most of
the providers that I worked with, prefer to use something like 1 and 2 for
easy numbering the links.

> the delegating and requesting router.

I just re-read the DHCP-PD document, and is not so clear to me that this
breaks the model (I mean strictly there is no any text that is against this
usage). Also, we have actually tested this, even with Cisco, and it works
;-)

If you mean that DHCP-PD concept is to delegate the complete prefix to the
requesting router, well, the user owning the CPE will not complain having
one less /64, but also is not so clear to me that we are stealing from them
a /64 because this is actually used to connect it ;-)

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:10:30 +0900

> a /64 because this is actually used to connect it ;-)

how is the requesting router supposed to know that it can't use that
prefix on a downstream link?

cheers,
Ole

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:01:54 +0100

Hi Ole,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:10:30 +0900

This is not a "must" document, just info from operational experience. I'm
not stating that this is the only way and that should be done like this.
Also, it may depend on if the CPE is using the 1st /64 or something
different. I don't see this is stated in the DHCP-PD document, so I guess is
a decision of each implementation or I miss something ?.