RFC 3627 Historic: RFC 3627 to Historic Status
Marks the old advice against /127 router links as Historic, so readers follow the newer RFC 6164 instead.
George, W., "RFC 3627 to Historic Status", RFC 6547, DOI 10.17487/RFC6547, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6547>.
@misc{rfc6547,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 6547,
howpublished = {RFC 6547},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC6547},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6547},
author = {W. George},
title = {{RFC 3627 to Historic Status}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 2012,
month = feb,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. George
Request for Comments: 6547 Time Warner Cable
Obsoletes: 3627 February 2012
Updates: 6164
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
RFC 3627 to Historic Status
Abstract
This document moves "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
Considered Harmful" (RFC 3627) to Historic status to reflect the
updated guidance contained in "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-
Router Links" (RFC 6164). A Standards Track document supersedes an
informational document; therefore, guidance provided in RFC 6164 is
to be followed when the two documents are in conflict. This document
links the two RFCs so that the IETF's updated guidance on this topic
is clearer.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6547.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
This document moves "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
Considered Harmful" [RFC3627] to Historic status in accordance with
RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. RFC 3627 has been superseded by "Using 127-Bit
IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links" [RFC6164]. A Standards Track
document supersedes an informational document; therefore, guidance
provided in RFC 6164 is to be followed when the two documents are in
conflict. This may not have been clear to casual readers who are not
familiar with the differences in IETF document types. This document
adds the necessary link between the two RFCs so that users referring
to RFC 3627 for guidance will see that it has been obsoleted by
updated guidance on the matter, thus hopefully eliminating any
confusion that may be present.
2. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations.
3. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Brian Carpenter, Bob Hinden, and Ron Bonica for guidance on
the matter, and to Pekka Savola and Miya Kohno and the other authors
of 6164 for their support.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC3627] Savola, P., "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers
Considered Harmful", RFC 3627, September 2003.
[RFC6164] Kohno, M., Nitzan, B., Bush, R., Matsuzaki, Y., Colitti,
L., and T. Narten, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-
Router Links", RFC 6164, April 2011.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Author's Address
Wesley George
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Phone: +1 703-561-2540
EMail: wesley.george@twcable.com
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Why a Link Was Needed
This document moves RFC 3627, "Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful", to Historic status in accordance with RFC 2026. RFC 3627 has been superseded by RFC 6164, "Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links".
The two documents were not formally linked, which may not have been clear to casual readers unfamiliar with the differences in IETF document types.
Two papers gave opposite advice, and nothing on the old one said it was out of date.
§2Which Guidance Wins
The rule stated here is simple: a Standards Track document supersedes an informational document. Where RFC 6164 and RFC 3627 conflict, the guidance in RFC 6164 is to be followed.
This document adds the necessary link between the two RFCs, so that users who refer to RFC 3627 will see that it has been obsoleted by updated guidance. It also updates RFC 6164. It introduces no new security considerations.
When a newer official rule and an older note disagree, you follow the official rule. This note makes that obvious.
§3The Two RFCs Involved
The text identifies RFC 3627 as published in September 2003 and RFC 6164 as published in April 2011. It does not restate the technical arguments of either document, so for the actual reasoning about prefix lengths on router links, read RFC 6164.
This note does not explain the rule itself. It only says which paper to read.