Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Thu, 23 February 2017 19:09 UTC
Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
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 E7711129967; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:09:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.936
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 DegD2DTE-m-2; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:3::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61B391297DE; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:08:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail3.mlpsca01.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1cgyl4-0004E2-ML (job@us.ntt.net); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:08:55 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:08:46 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
Message-ID: <20170223190846.GS89584@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RbY7oaxWrYi7QPzEaBPnm4FTBkU>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, ietf@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, 23 Feb 2017 19:09:03 -0000
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:00:13PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > as it's currently worded, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis seems to prohibit > the implementation of any interface netmask != /64: > > > However, the Interface ID of > > all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value > > 000, is required to be 64 bits long. > > This has substantial operational consequences in the ipv6 world because > if it's implemented as stated, it will cause production ipv6 networks to > break. > > The ipv6 operational community may have opinions on the wisdom of > mandating new behaviour which would cause their networks to fall over, > so it would probably be a good idea to notify v6ops@ietf about the > existence of this draft so that the folks over there get a look-in > before a consensus call is made. As far as I can tell, this notification > never happened. This is not 'new', but it is a re-iteration of (in my opinion) a specification of a non-optimal addressing architecture. Aside from the newness, I agree with you. I would've hoped that when a document like this is revised after 10+ years, people would think to ask and include in dialogue the actual ipv6 operators whether reality is aligned with the documented architecture. rfc4291 (2006) "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." rfc3513 (2003) "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format. rfc2373 (1998) "The format prefixes 001 through 111, except for Multicast Addresses (1111 1111), are all required to have to have 64-bit interface identifiers in EUI-64 format. See section 2.5.1 for definitions." Kind regards, Job
- draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 su… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Job Snijders
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Pierre Pfister
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Nick Hilliard
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Xing Li
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Jared Mauch
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Pierre Pfister
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Yoav Nir
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… heasley
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Alexandre PETRESCU
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibitin… Philip Homburg