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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 23/02/2017 à 07:58, Erik Kline a écrit :
> On 23 February 2017 at 15:05, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         > the IETF and 6man absolutely have the ability to change the standard,
>         > but it should follow the proper process: write a draft, get consensus,
>
>         that is the process we are currently in.  but there seems to be
>         serious
>         disagreement over the draft.
>
>
>     AIUI the goal of the process is to reclassify the current
>     specification. That severely restricts the types of changes that are
>     possible. That is the basis on which this document gained WG
>     consensus and reached IETF last call.
>
>     If we want to say that we're no longer reclassifying the current
>     specification but are instead opening the door to bigger changes,
>     then the document should go back to the WG for further work because
>     the existing WG consensus was based on the stated goal of
>     reclassifying the document.
>
>
> I agree with the procedural concerns here.  Among other things, if we
> make substantial changes it's hard to claim we have experience running
> the new thing we've documented.
>
> I tend to think of IID concept's primary use as: if I have the IID
> ::dead:beef/64 then for every new /64 PIO that's announced *I* can
> reasonably expect to lay claim to prefix1::dead:beef/64,
> prefix2::dead:beef/64, and so on.  (Support for this mode operations,
> SLAAC, is a MUST.)

No.  It is a MAY.  When doing manual configuration one does need to run 
SLAAC too.

Alex

>
> I don't personally find any major conflict when considering static and
> stateful addressing.  For example, if there are 2 prefixes on a link,
> and the administrators are using static addressing then prefix1::cafe
> and prefix2::cafe do not in any way have to belong to the same interface
> on the same host. ... at least as far as I understand it.  If prefix1
> and prefix2 are each longer than /64 then each 64bit IID would still be
> unique--no problems.  But if each were <=64 then it's just violating a
> recommendation in the first paragraph of 2.4.1--not a big deal for the
> administrator that wants to run that way.
>
> I'm not sure if this adds anything useful to the discussion, though.
> -Erik
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>