IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 14:09 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 8DE411297CF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:09:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.333 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, 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 PG3_uVifpqDU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 3BCBE1297D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v1OE9kdv038284 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:09:46 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A72A207F84 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F1220B787 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1OE9k3i002379 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:09:46 +0100
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2ymnLm9dUNL3doU9+vR0eMzGbr71HQybbibXq9rCObP3A@mail.gmail.com> <21A9AEAE-330D-47F3-88CA-FC845C71AED0@darou.fr> <CAKD1Yr2Q-AUEWQSXFPzjn73Q7dJhMpB2_iHb3wJTCGx4-==Bpg@mail.gmail.com> <DADB35F5-3CB6-4396-A99F-ECE13C3EFE44@darou.fr>
Message-ID: <e89b23b0-b037-995e-fd66-335505ecee61@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:09:36 +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: <DADB35F5-3CB6-4396-A99F-ECE13C3EFE44@darou.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SbJFWjiPIdSqEtmwtZSs8dKouY4>
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 14:09:49 -0000


Le 24/02/2017 à 07:58, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
>
>> Le 24 févr. 2017 à 04:27, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com
>> <mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Pierre Pfister
>> <pierre.pfister@darou.fr <mailto:pierre.pfister@darou.fr>> wrote:
>>
>>     > The thing is this is not new text, it has been in RFC4291 for 11
>>     > years. c.f., 2.5.1.
>>
>>     And during those 11 years. Nobody implemented this rule specific
>>     to ::/3.
>>
>>
>> I can implement it today in some of our code if you like :-).
>
> Good luck getting that upstreamed ! ;-)
>
>> But it seems unlikely to make a difference, since the rule only
>> applies to unicast addresses in ::/3, and no such addresses have been
>> released to the RIRs. That in turn is unlikely to change until we run
>> out of 2000::/3, and even then we'll likely move on to allocating
>> addresses out of 4000::/3 instead of from ::/3.
>
> So what you are saying is that all currently assigned unicast addresses
> are out of the ::/3 prefix.
> Meaning that, according to proposed standard, I should not be able to
> configure on-link prefixes of length different than 64 with currently
> assigned unicast addresses.
> At least Linux, Windows, Apple, Cisco, and probably all mature IPv6
> stacks, would let you configure prefixes of length different than 64.

A question to Windows is the following: what prefixlen does it set when 
the end user manually assigns an address on an interface without 
specifiying a prefixlen?

Is that 64?  If yes then it's wrong.

Alex

>
> - Pierre
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email