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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 15:04 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 CC037129DE7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:04:53 -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 yUZffPv-rThD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:04:52 -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 80ED2129DE6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:04:52 -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 v1OF4pOu018711 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:04:51 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id F060720B846 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:04:50 +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 E63ED20B814 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:04:50 +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 v1OF4odX000822 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:04:50 +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> <CAN-Dau0xpjB4Z8CgSfW0W7y4F_wnXNS+Ws1UNBC-YnBDrPiTjQ@mail.gmail.com> <cf3496dc-47c6-6c6b-a42a-e0402789110a@si6networks.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa238941-3d6f-b9bc-3471-e3f6112e4649@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:04:41 +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: <cf3496dc-47c6-6c6b-a42a-e0402789110a@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kc2jKP1kLRRkJDg7ZI1KcQT0-hw>
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 15:04:54 -0000


Le 24/02/2017 à 04:13, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 02/23/2017 07:43 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com
>> <mailto:lorenzo@google.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?
>>
>>
>> OK, what if we said something like this;
>>
>>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>>    128 [BCP198]. However, all implementations of IPv6 are REQUIRED to
>>    support an IID length of 64 bits, other IID lengths are OPTIONAL.
>>    Subnet prefixes of /64 are RECOMMENDED for general purpose use,
>>    subnet prefixes of /127 are RECOMMENDED for point-to-point router
>>    links [RFC6164], other subnet prefix lengths are NOT RECOMMENDED,
>>    as their use could be incompatible with some implementations of IPv6.
>>    The rationale for the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found
>>    in [RFC7421].
>
> I'd remove a few sentences here, as in:
>
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198]. Subnet prefixes of /64 are RECOMMENDED for general
>    purpose use, subnet prefixes of /127 are RECOMMENDED for point-
>    to-point router links [RFC6164]. The rationale for the 64 bit
>    boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421].

For me IMHO that is still too much text.  Who needs her favorite use 
purpose to be called general by an archi doc and why?

Why not the ptp links be general purpose?  For example ptp cellular links?

Alex

>
> Thanks,
>