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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sat, 14 January 2017 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 B29F0129876 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 mvfqwBdWEX_g for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (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 B7A97129622 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41090B30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 04:35:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gpapzl0NQZc6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f69.google.com (mail-vk0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09394B31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f69.google.com with SMTP id j12so39802115vkd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oN59oPvweuCcfvcoVPcu61J9ndm40GdhdczuJwCE1jg=; b=lF079WU0oNsWbBCUwBmI0UTK7Qyc5XXgUssuK4K+dfiATNmcyQ/Ajpqi61sG97CbTE 9a3tRtfHujMbcZXUa2y1DiXKLjx+vvnlLy/pLe6Rt8g6tCumE6FHA9eCbeFDF0ri4Tdj sLP5j05Khy9sR3GAsRvRx3uFvUy9Mtp5nOECtDC7B4SH92yObiRgiwxM61wrXx06eZx6 8+afR6dTN08s0kRIIXCS6xaQoiBo0zH2rx9eukbntuaE62aFPZvpdxnEmlA1/ROYodyz +cQOWTXQqjcIj/vT4t9VUvf9WGPpBpzGfoDcMRSMUDEHDhJ0dAg6nbgQa4OvCO9Qdmda 9VVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oN59oPvweuCcfvcoVPcu61J9ndm40GdhdczuJwCE1jg=; b=L3TUSaI4dCL78D/19vOcYNNFHIzDFIIFu2hi4IuMqOFSFMNIA6wIR4cCf7BogFfxLI QDGkGdmPsIPeBLDw570Dfk/ix7ehFMm7xS4opX6/gtxCeMHVOdaJqgk5cnuv1aL6Wf7f 14P0bbKjG2U7vaIrdFZvUD0yZLsNZyn5T7x/PDQgQr9Uji6x83g4N3pQEc/47ty8p4cq vq0ldGnlsQmuCqNKapuDN1AjUzgofP7JtFs5XgtjHEkP0N9Lh6ST/vjAQTd1alRWpvE5 Cbz3PqUgZBJINYZc8O0xuDLhYWrIpaQtVZYzxXereVXOn5ngH+SUOnYs9JAfa3muRJhN RYbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJljGOGWV0+3etJAMYq36E8r17ZrGqGXLWMyIG/zEQWf17siquqpKN7gR3spp8kIClvgASl6mKdSIvpXx97ywq4e4KOHjxUAr5wRtfVWGc7BQsrbrVAjqx6C0P8M6OGooEnkKQaWhZfbKQ=
X-Received: by 10.159.49.92 with SMTP id n28mr10834458uab.95.1484368528483; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.159.49.92 with SMTP id n28mr10834451uab.95.1484368528319; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045dd9d8d8b9450546067aff
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YnPF8fkE1mujDiV1C342LCHssfY>
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, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
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: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 04:35:33 -0000

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> ....
>
> Which is exactly why we have so far only delegated 1/8 of the
> IPv6 address space for global unicast allocation, leaving a *lot*
> of space for fixing our mistakes. Moving away from /64 as the
> recommended subnet size might, or might not, prove to be necessary in
> the long term future. That's why the point about routing being
> classless is fundamental. I do think we need to be a bit more
> precise on this point in 4291bis.
>
>     Brian


Exactly, /64 is the RECOMMENDED subnet size, or a SHOULD from RFC2119, and
I'm fine with that, but that's not what the following says.

   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
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421>].


It says REQUIRED, that is a MUST from RFC2119, and I believe it to be an
Imperative as discussed in section 6 of RFC2119.

I'm fine with /64, /127 and /128 as the RECOMMENDED subnet sizes, I support
that and believe it to be the consensus of the IETF. Maybe even explicitly
noting /65 through /126 are NOT RECOMMENDED subnet sizes, and not support
by SLACC.  But it is not correct to say the /64 is REQUIRED.

I also believe RFC7608 supports this conclusion.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@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
===============================================