IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Fri, 17 February 2017 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 96F141294EF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:42:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 T2M0KpzMwPgt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CCD129986 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:42:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2017 10:42:40 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B7ED788D; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:42:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=iSK2i4vQL2u59dTHMDPZCG1NQVQ=; b= hjWe/qeoa+HnGGBDbrVNFg6sZ+Tmi1+kCZoyxuX7xwI7rqGnFbktQFInxAvyPTEa UbNbD/eLI6Dpt8Jnr0rAViajf1zkEuAukCADtjIFBi11u6WNg1J9Yvpr1cy0aW1E d25VHaMlpHkgvfLaYYb2O9FHQJAiW8CJVzLxZrqNi5g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=QL4krqg1LdCjL+fea9F7M+9 9JxGThr0Tak96/ptPAI/oa9rUOcUnRGgj1KxMLkKEMBLG+rDdYb5mDTk7EDHxLnk pVSt3wqaw3C8tOOmDyoG7SkdT6CaBmhLy7A0nZt8oicJLIDOMLTj7zUHg9X9Ottw 1E4ot4u/QH8PsYadlJGo=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C1AAD788B; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76BC8C1FA47; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:42:54 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <ED07BD47-5305-4DAC-92C0-D3D923B64879@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE8A1A6C-263A-45F6-9343-B4C5EA8EC381"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:42:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <7248f845-7ee4-4448-aefa-b48dda486ac7@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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> <m2wpcpdgiv.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAO42Z2xVFsV2CvPsJa3yZnsVg2_Ln1-4GP4e-GU2saJSMw3j2w@mail.gmail.com> <7248f845-7ee4-4448-aefa-b48dda486ac7@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iKf3RQ11npfR1i32JSf-QgdIqd4>
Cc: 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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:42:47 -0000

>> Objecting to it, calling it "classful", is implying that it is
>> exactly the same as IPv4 classful addressing. I don't think IPv6 is.
> 
> Perhaps not precisely the same, because there are no 'IPv6 classes'.
> 
> But, an IPv4 Class C is quite the same as an IPv6 prefix/64.  The limit
> is 24bit in IPv4, and 64bit in IPv6.  True, the forwarding in IPv6 is on
> bit-boundary where classful IPv4 is on byte-boundary, yet an otherwise
> bit-boundary IPv6 _>/64_ route can not reach computers relying on
> SLAAC/Ethernet /64.
> 
> That makes it a limit, which in turn generates what appears to be an
> 'IPv6 class' - the leftmost 64bits.

Having a single class does not make it classful.

If you want the 64-bit boundary changed. This is not the right context for it.
Write a draft. Justify why 64-bits of prefix isn't enough for you.

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email