IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - 'conforming IPv6' - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A8C12029F; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 02:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 hwNOOJIp79Yq; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 02:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
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 4DC6212006D; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 02:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
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 x389Igkx035589; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:18:42 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id A8B26202E97; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:18:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910F0202329; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:18:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x389IgVX005804; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:18:42 +0200
To: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, its@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org
References: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94941ef0-d0df-e8fe-091b-2e616f595eba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:18:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/742XJdgz8j0rZ9-tz-y6ooxkHi0>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - 'conforming IPv6' - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:18:50 -0000

Le 04/03/2019 à 12:24, Pascal Thubert a écrit :
> Reviewer: Pascal Thubert
> Review result: Not Ready
[...]
> "
> 
> This
>     subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix fe80::/10 and the
>     interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 addresses of type link-local.
> "
> If this is conforming IPv6 then the MUST is not needed.

What do you mean by 'conforming IPv6'?

The above phrase is a clarification of existing IPv6 specs.

The spec in question is RFC 2464.  I consider that to be what we need to 
  conform to.  That spec says 'fe80::/64'.  But that 64 is wrong.  Hence 
the clarification.

Do you disagree with it?

(the reasons why I put there /10 and not /64 are the following: LLs work 
in linux with any length between 10 and 64, the ND spec does not 
restrict to 64, the IANA starts at 10, and probably other reasons; there 
is a recent I-D about this LL prefix length: 
draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len-07).

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email