IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 12 January 2017 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 E23921294F9; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 yEscyawGqAVT; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x243.google.com (mail-qt0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4431289C4; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x243.google.com with SMTP id a29so3966717qtb.1; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:23:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=R+VhdfW2filhZ56WH8Iu0cuAdQBr7128BRBknFIr6hQ=; b=EMC3SXU74Ui0oP1JlqisfW39sI3cv+SyTycq2rvTUaJeyUYLiP4DwYCKAXBSGHulCN JJGoJb+pwEceRtvdf+SJHsyAFy1sFB99/u1LlBg/ztSpB9rCMyKZjK+fAwCxB8H7Dyyb 8zJnyYTLYWlk1eDVI+94BXu2hwaDr5QTycEuigjDUiPLxNUTeK0C+F0NXPk4Kw2OlAst gsWjDJTk0w2WWR7H+SZHq2tkZwLS73bopT1812EgoPqzTTipNqHmqn7rsrQM+clJF7E7 GW4gHeQEjFYZQLZi1pi8DA2Kw6j93GZzqMrOCTPI66ez83naj0haxswbJYHfOzpp+opi hZeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=R+VhdfW2filhZ56WH8Iu0cuAdQBr7128BRBknFIr6hQ=; b=DNrR5fLLMOpVA1wQGiqTGawU3ux/bNdCk77w3nafYSiZ7Y0fzSGfNdcqg8ITML0YEj eDFBrrIEss1GkeHig8hL3fvC7PiMZKyOdyO4caFFfYk327UHNByKmy7xSQyD75ebCT5h chQVQM8UAv7+XO2lUzv+2Wa5Wt2liIfH3/OuvccChUnV2mAJLsOSLVIpAwLcb9D9kKyS m9WUoXbrtVtNC5+hEP+VhjsUqqBcfo9uVBL5oVq4ulveec52cW74no0jWNZb5TuDDb32 7Dz0h1peuneQxCLa3ZnvymHQEdRv1P0scDl+PFQO1CcrZZT8uyAgOJ6NMo5OXFdjBA7U eeqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJiaA81XsmNe8Jn0NPH9tqrTs1ahQoe7ATAmxL7e/4DQDiFPu+1bqQYSeynLwWauQ==
X-Received: by 10.237.50.193 with SMTP id z59mr3325956qtd.102.1484256179217; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z29sm7592799qtz.16.2017.01.12.13.22.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:22:55 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HyAMsPfwZSCjQvDuCFwnNo3w5bA>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org
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: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:23:02 -0000

Randy,

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
>> 1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952, but
>> I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate 5952 since
>> its content is now contained within 4291bis?
> 
> 5952 has much more very useful detail for those of us who write software
> to parse, compare, ... textual representations of ipv6 addresses, see
> section 4 of 5952.  so i suggest the replacement of 2.2 with a reference
> to 5952.

Per your comment and Brian’s suggestion, I will add a reference to RFC5952.  RFC5952 doesn’t replace the definitions in RFC4291, it make a recommendation on outputting IPv6 text representation, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to replace 2.2 with just a reference.

> 
> it is very cheering to see section 2.4.0, "96 more bits no magic"
> [credit gaurab].

Good

> 
> but i am having a hard time reconciling 2.4.4's insistence on a
> mandatory 64-bit uuid in all unicast global addresses with 2.4.0, rfc
> 6141, widespread operational practice, ...  clue bat please.
> 

This was discussed extensively in 6MAN and resulted in RFC7421 "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing”.  The text in rfc4291bis is:

   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.  Background
   on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421].

Thanks,
Bob

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email