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> Tue, 21 February 2017 09:47 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 88EE712959A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:47:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.332 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, 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 RU8nzQUYq_br for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:47:15 -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 0BF0812940B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:47:14 -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 v1L9lD4W016506 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:47:13 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F3C96202B05 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:47:12 +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 E9C152015D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:47:12 +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 v1L9lCeh027951 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:47:12 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com> <660929B4-158B-453F-9B5F-6C029F9699FA@employees.org> <E093E86F-41F5-4485-A8D3-761831F9AAF8@google.com> <BA018A61-1390-4775-ACB9-61C66D7A34FB@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0m1mP4gmGF12NVLDyoo0+QFSRUmetjnPWbv5dU5nEtsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1FvJFU+_MyL1UkFkkaJ9x5dPfiMDkCRfdjNcB1Vb1JFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1e5d9486-ea94-f1ca-ad6f-05e9bc0c2c5e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:47:06 +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: <CAN-Dau1FvJFU+_MyL1UkFkkaJ9x5dPfiMDkCRfdjNcB1Vb1JFA@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/gtK1PWb1-TnZit51k6HHy1B1A6Y>
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:47:16 -0000


Le 20/02/2017 à 19:32, David Farmer a écrit :
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com
> <mailto:lorenzo@google.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Do you think it makes sense to cite RFC 7934 as well? There is text
> in there that also justifies the 64 bit boundary.
>
>
> I think a reference to RFC 7934 absolutely belong in the IPv6
> Addressing Architecture,

I agree.

I read that RFC7934 again because a new errata points to an earlier
RFC1681 mentioning additional reasons for needing multiple IP addresses
per Host: e.g. a ppp Router.

I would appreciate if RFC4291bis considered the /64 limit too in light
of today's IoT Routers connecting to cellular operators.  How would such
cellular IoT Router live with /64-everywhere of current cellular operators?

> but it seems more appropriate in section 2.1, maybe the second
> paragraph or even a new paragraph in that section.

Section 2.1 looks good to receive a reference for RFC7934.

Alex

>
> -- =============================================== David Farmer
> Email:farmer@umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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
> ===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email