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 09:02 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 8AC6812966A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:02:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.352 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 snzod3OSYcbE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02650129682 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1N924Wm002492 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:02:04 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 704A120716F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:02:04 +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 668AB207169 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:02:04 +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 v1N924Ad009515 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:02:04 +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> <5ce34926-6bde-6410-9b1e-3f61e48e9a1d@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yRTUPVTTicaTkA8fAFxHiHxdLG8ZzEHjCUDDzKg5zJg@mail.gmail.com> <0f3db3bd87eb4a9ba51360d9b73751e3@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr2o3eyuhvij4=KjsVMTor=oh5N8AWfjOCJ_jh6nSA0=Gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb133099-95ba-430b-1602-efb395307015@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:01:56 +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: <CAKD1Yr2o3eyuhvij4=KjsVMTor=oh5N8AWfjOCJ_jh6nSA0=Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z6GsGKHAWuyhkrUiCOcZRNBsdAo>
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 09:02:13 -0000


Le 23/02/2017 à 06:58, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com <mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>> wrote:
>
>     > Help he understand, then. There is widely-deployed code that assumes
>     > that the interface ID is 64 and does not work on anything other than
>     > 64 bit prefix lengths. Currently that code is correct on all unicast
>     > space. If you change RFC 4291, won't that code be incorrect?
>
>     This shows precisely why it is urgent to update RFC 4291, to correct
>     that notion of a fixed IID, before it's too late to set things
>     straight again.
>
>
> Ok, so you're suggesting that we drop the attempt to reclassify RFC
> 4291, and instead write a new document to update it? That's a possible
> course of action. It would only result in your desired outcome if there
> was rough consensus to change the boundary, but as I said before, I'm
> not going to oppose that course of action.
>
>
>        IPv6 unicast addresses are aggregatable with prefixes of arbitrary
>
>        bit-length, similar to IPv4 addresses under Classless Inter-Domain
>        Routing.
>
>     Important point. Arbitrary length. That does not mean 64 bits.
>
>
> Nobody is disagreeing with that text. Please refer to the earlier
> clarifications in this thread and the discussion in 6man that pointed
> out that *routing* based on prefix lengths != 64 is independent from
> *interface IDs* being required to be 64 bits long or not.

Please understand that routing based on prefix lenghts != 64 is 
dependent on subnets with IIDs precisely of that prefix length.

It is an error to SLAAC/Ethernet/64 on a subnet to which only a /120 is 
routed.

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email