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> Thu, 23 February 2017 09:08 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 BDA2A12956A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, 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 JNVzPtO3v__x for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:08:04 -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 427461293FB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:08:04 -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 v1N982Ge026196 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:08:02 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BFA732071C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:08:02 +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 B61362071B3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:08:02 +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 v1N9824l017392 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:08:02 +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> <ff7ede5d-7451-53df-0124-96a7344b3d96@si6networks.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fcc26901-5375-9786-0353-19050f4497e8@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:07:54 +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: <ff7ede5d-7451-53df-0124-96a7344b3d96@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MDb35NQ52IlosbniEDmt5tXO6KI>
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, 23 Feb 2017 09:08:06 -0000


Le 23/02/2017 à 09:17, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 02/22/2017 09:41 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Nobody is saying that /64 isn't extremely widely used where it's
>> appropriate to have a portable fixed length IID. Set the default at
>> 64 and trust operators to change it where they need to. That's
>> realistic.
>>
>>
>> As a host developer I strongly oppose that. It will make life
>> easier for network operators but make life harder for host OS
>> developers, host operators, and host users.
>>
>> And it is absolutely inappropriate to change this now in given that
>> the /64 boundary has been the standard for the last 20 years. It
>> will break deployed code that relies on the current standard. (That
>> includes concrete code I can point to that I know runs on tens of
>> millions of devices.) That's not acceptable to do in a standard
>> reclassification.
>
> If the above will break your code, then your code is already broken.
> Fix it.

There are a number of precise places that have been identified that
hardcode a 64 value, even places that have nothing to do with
SLAAC/Ethernet.  Especially when it comes to size of a subnet prefix 'by
default'.  Think DHCPv6 code, GUIs, CLIs, and more.

When trying to modify it some times the feedback is better dont, because
the RFCs tell 64 and 64 is a good number.  Some people even say that
IPv6 is different than IPv4 because it has this 64 strong limit.

Alex

>
> Thanks,
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email