IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065D0129697 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:50:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ka_ndGcX4Mbj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:50:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79BCC129DD0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:50:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1OEoQFF024277 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:50:26 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C439420B84A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:50:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7FF20B843 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:50:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1OEoQ6j017128 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:50:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net> <7960ff2d-359f-429c-6e82-ef592f90bf53@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1W+AVt4Dixo9epB5VazxBsVMD+mrshwaE=n7SuX6eGDw@mail.gmail.com> <5ce34926-6bde-6410-9b1e-3f61e48e9a1d@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yRTUPVTTicaTkA8fAFxHiHxdLG8ZzEHjCUDDzKg5zJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0xpjB4Z8CgSfW0W7y4F_wnXNS+Ws1UNBC-YnBDrPiTjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a6a203dd-13cf-37c5-e1b6-8ea61a634550@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:50:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0xpjB4Z8CgSfW0W7y4F_wnXNS+Ws1UNBC-YnBDrPiTjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Anicrkp6scdPWNfYPBH0ZRvOROo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:50:32 -0000


Le 23/02/2017 à 23:43, David Farmer a écrit :
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com
> <mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     Help he understand, then. There is widely-deployed code that assumes
>     that the interface ID is 64 and does not work on anything other than
>     64 bit prefix lengths. Currently that code is correct on all unicast
>     space. If you change RFC 4291, won't that code be incorrect?
>
>
> OK, what if we said something like this;
>
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198]. However, all implementations of IPv6 are REQUIRED to
>    support an IID length of 64 bits, other IID lengths are OPTIONAL.
>    Subnet prefixes of /64 are RECOMMENDED for general purpose use,
>    subnet prefixes of /127 are RECOMMENDED for point-to-point router
>    links [RFC6164], other subnet prefix lengths are NOT RECOMMENDED,
>    as their use could be incompatible with some implementations of IPv6.
>    The rationale for the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found
>    in [RFC7421].
>
> I'd prefer other IID lengths to be RECOMMENDED for implementations, but
> I can live with OPTIONAL.

But it's already so beautful to say just plen+IID must give 128.  Why 
telling more?  Could that be 'over-specifying'?

Alex

>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email