Re: [Int-dir] IPv6-over-foo and Addressing Architecture (was Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - options for fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64)

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 11/04/2019 à 15:26, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
>> On Apr 11, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Le 11/04/2019 à 13:38, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>>>>> I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec
>>>>>> needs to rely on the use of a non-0 value in the
>>>>>> intermediate 54 bits", btw. If that's not the case, it's
>>>>>> much safer and less controversial to just not mention it
>>>>>> (either in the form of "LL prefix length" or more
>>>>>> explicitly).  I guess that's also what others are
>>>>>> suggesting (and I agree with them in that sense).
>>>> There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of
>>>> IPv6 LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document. There is the option of
>>>> mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates 4291 section X" in
>>>> the header of the 1st page. There is the option of proving by
>>>> implementation that fe80:1::1/32 on OCB is not harmful to
>>>> others.
>>> Two of these options will likely prohibit consensus being reqched
>>> on this document. I encourage you to carefully consider how to
>>> best spend your time and the time of the particpants in the
>>> involved set of working groups.
>> 
>> YEs, thank you for the advice Ole.  I need to take care how to
>> spend my time.  Maybe try to avoid taking on directions that are
>> known to be dead ended.
>> 
>> I read your message as a warning that I take seriously.  For that,
>> I would like to ask you whether you make this suggestion as a WG
>> Chair of 6man WG?  Or as a contributor to other WGs?
> 
> <AD Hat On> I would like to look at this from a different angle. It
> is clear from the current standards that you need to be using
> fe80::/64 to form the LL address as the IPv6 address architecture
> requires the IID to be 64 bits long (for non b000 prefixes) and SLAAC
> requires the prefix and the IID lengths to add up to 128. If you want
> this changed, I don’t think this is the document where you should do
> it. The *burden of proof is on you* to show why the status quo does
> not work in this case and IMHO it has not been meet.
> 
> I would request that you keep the link-local prefix length discussion
> out of this draft, and in 6man where it belongs. Here is the thread
> that you started in January this year in 6man
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SD0OSOxFe9UGExX84u_CQSdfOsM
>
>  and the associated draft
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len/
> 
> If you wish to pursue this topic further, please do so with *that*
> draft. An IP-over-foo document is not a place to do such a major
> architectural change.

Well ok, but I would like to pursue that draft without opposition.

The draft did have discussion yet it got refused for presentation.

I would like to avoid ping pong.

Alex

> 
> Thanks Suresh
>