Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889)

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Wed, 04 August 2010 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8F83A6984 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UvxzsSHQfMdi for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913FC3A69BC for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so2172765ewy.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.36.87 with SMTP id v63mr3644295eea.0.1280918157994; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.197] (ip56530916.direct-adsl.nl [86.83.9.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm12532152eeh.8.2010.08.04.03.35.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Aug 2010 03:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4C593A41.9050206@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:35:55 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E208E95-19C5-4865-BE46-DDEB3468222A@inf-net.nl>
References: <4C528979.7010006@oracle.com> <E21BA9FD-4715-4DA8-9586-9380126763E2@gmail.com> <0306B415-E08D-427B-B01C-2366C52EBF57@inf-net.nl> <4C593A41.9050206@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: autoconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:35:31 -0000

You mix things up.
If you read the text, you'll see the first text is for router identifiers.
The message is that what can be done for router identifiers can be done for
link locals also. Let's be consistent.

Teco


Op 4 aug 2010, om 12:00 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> I'd capitalize "Modified EUI-64", as RFC4291 puts it.
> 
> Le 04/08/2010 11:01, Teco Boot a écrit :
>> One problem and proposal for correction. I don't want to delay the process,
>> so accepting or rejecting it is acceptable (RFC is informational, so
>> I can ignore all what it says). I suggest authors, ADs, chairs and Erik
>> decide.
>> 
>> The NEW text says: "must be of the modified EUI-64 form".
>> There can be other mechanisms that assure uniqueness. Other text says:
>> "such identifiers could be based on factory assignment or configuration".
> 
> Hmmm... would this factory assignment be in agreement with the 'u' and 'g' bits of the Modified EUI-64 format?  If yes, then there wouldn't be a need to mention such identifiers.
> 
> If no - then we don't talk Modified EUI-64, and we can't say that the global uniqueness could be guaranteed by factory assignment, I think.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
>> The new text will bring a consistency problem in the document.
>> A _should_ helps:
>> 
>> NEWER:
>> o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>>  addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>>  addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form are
>>  globally unique. Thus if link-local addresses are used to reliably
>>  identify routers then they should be of the modified EUI-64 form.
>>                             ------
>> 
>> Christopher Dearlove brought up same issue:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/msg02736.html
>> He suggests removing the last text sentence completely:
>> <Chris>
>> 
>> NEW:
>>   o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>>      addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>>      addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form are
>>      globally unique.
>> 
>> (Personally, I'd modify that a little further, to:
>> 
>>   o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>>      addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>>      addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form
>>      ahould be globally unique
>> 
>> </Chris>
>> 
>> With correction "ahould" to "should", I support this last proposal.
>> Less text is better.
>> 
>> Teco
>> 
>> 
>> Op 3 aug 2010, om 02:14 heeft Ryuji Wakikawa het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> At the IETF78 meeting, we had the rough consensus to adapt
>>> the Erik's modification for RFC5889 in the room.
>>> 
>>> To confirm our consensus on the list, we ask the WG consensus call
>>> for adaption of Erik's modification for RFC5889.
>>> 
>>> The detailed modifications can be found at the attached email below. Thanks Erik.
>>> 
>>> Please vote for your opinion before "Aug 9th 12:00PM (PST)".
>>> If you have any objections, please give us clear reason and propose your text.
>>> 
>>> thanks in advance,
>>> Thomas, ryuji
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Erik Nordmark<erik.nordmark@oracle.com>
>>>> Date: 2010/07/30 01:12:41GMT-07:00
>>>> To: autoconf@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please double-check this, but I think it has all the list of changes that Jari said verbally.
>>>> 
>>>> Erik
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> 
>>>> Change the title
>>>> FROM
>>>>               IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
>>>> TO
>>>>               A Router Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
>>>> 
>>>> In section 5:
>>>> OLD:
>>>> Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
>>>> requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
>>>> requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
>>>> only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
>>>> in [RFC1136]).
>>>> 
>>>> Configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing domain
>>>> satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
>>>> uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
>>>> stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain.  This
>>>> suggests the following principle:
>>>> 
>>>> o  an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
>>>>  with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
>>>>  least within the routing domain.
>>>> NEW:
>>>> Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
>>>> requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
>>>> requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
>>>> only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
>>>> in [RFC1136]).
>>>> Routing protocols that do not require unique IP addresses within the
>>>> routing domain utilize a separate unique identifier within the routing
>>>> protocol itself; such identifiers could be based on factory assignment
>>>> or configuration.
>>>> 
>>>> Nevertheless, configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing
>>>> domain satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
>>>> uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
>>>> stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain.  As a result, the following principle allows for IP autoconfiguration to
>>>> apply to the widest array of routing protocols:
>>>> 
>>>> o  an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
>>>>  with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
>>>>  least within the routing domain.
>>>> 
>>>> In Section 6.1:
>>>> OLD:
>>>> o  There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
>>>>  unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to
>>>>  reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a
>>>>  router with an IP address).
>>>> NEW:
>>>> o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>>>>  addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>>>>  addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form are
>>>>  globally unique. Thus if link-local addresses are used to reliably
>>>>  identify routers then they must be of the modified EUI-64 form.
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Autoconf mailing list
>>>> Autoconf@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Autoconf mailing list
>>> Autoconf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> Autoconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf