Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Iván Arce <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar> Wed, 01 March 2017 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD541295C0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:11:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fundacionsadosky.org.ar
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 8PzyH1Iy8qoG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 644C21295B3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id n186so75372239qkb.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:11:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fundacionsadosky.org.ar; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+WGw/ghoqO9vO3AuUk5cA9PNVph877o/6jK9fE3nhQ0=; b=gQuemay+rNLy562+xZAFI2jK+tAiVU1w2yjrXrJDNYO/ryuWniIn0zjYkYA4B1e+Ne m7miJwYEaPxs0BW1QyaQpSZSrguFm1rvejAMf0hPsMnXj7u0u+4P06Me1eXq5Ky8mKNq 9fdQew0Rmb/vSSgtCImGyIWrHC+Rzu820uB8Y=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+WGw/ghoqO9vO3AuUk5cA9PNVph877o/6jK9fE3nhQ0=; b=tr4xkQfKdhotVx2AamI888w+46tgS0IRweGiuTNYraEjb8MSJB5NgQgGYswG52Q5Do WSNRAmbRAATdkZVgjI2jQKmRMncJGmNsmYMw4TbD6Nd6srL8cD05lEmH9DKQIslQkigD XeoqKcGmvSc/SUIBKUrsHfxHnhRIDxLNQRDIKCI9RpYPRkZ2ht9KvrYGVivdTjxWXaD9 x1tAIdjREkr/hpUvEnx9tQcjYlhSGqL3ha82LNYO7vWLjGWSkbOrXzrQ1k4H4mSkJvWH qrUjbgB6Qy3GbvuFaZhnPeqv2NGcfW/qrM7zIjcbBuLoqtMC4XAnPT88qeweiGKiyAC+ nByw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kBrMGy8qibRGZMXuJG1mz1kUt1C9vGszTSOgsJau9LRnVCxf8SFoK8qvVjjTGsXA==
X-Received: by 10.55.75.2 with SMTP id y2mr10127510qka.39.1488384674184; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] ([186.158.218.178]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u43sm3421429qtc.11.2017.03.01.08.11.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:11:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301072747.GA10187@nokia.com> <CAKD1Yr0YDwpk2R33znnj=_0xoFbw-fx3v75n_7ftqqSmUmz-Ng@mail.gmail.com> <20170301104457.GA14420@nokia.com> <CAKD1Yr3H0_issqMq0ibqn_Ocv6w_FmKyx8tR_NhhsYkUu=myGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Iv=c3=a1n_Arce?= <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?Fundaci=c3=b3n_Dr._Manuel_Sadosky?=
Message-ID: <cb22a3f0-be89-8580-b472-936b7dd29caa@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:11:09 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 Lightning/4.7.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3H0_issqMq0ibqn_Ocv6w_FmKyx8tR_NhhsYkUu=myGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/03Ki1Iz7YZfcyntBRw9c2WL_Avg>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:11:18 -0000


El 1/3/17 a las 12:56, Lorenzo Colitti escribió:
> Yes, there are implementations that rely on the fact that IIDs are
> specified to be 64 bits to provide useful functionality. And they are
> widely deployed.
> 

I keep reading this on the list and wonder. What are these implementations?

Can we actually enumerate implementations that rely and dont' rely on a
fixed plen of 64 bits? Does a survey about that specific claim already
exist?

FTR: I believe RFC 4291bis SHOULD NOT mandate a fixed 64 bit plen in
general. I think any specific exceptions should be enumerated explicitly
and justified, and that existing behavior of some host OS that does not
adhere to spec should be described in an Informational I-D.


-ivan


>
-- 
Iván Arce
Director del Programa STIC
Fundación Dr. Manuel Sadosky
http://www.fundacionsadosky.org.ar
TE: (+54-11) 4328-5164
GPG fingerprint: 4D97 3003 76C9 9DA4 7209  7982 0A1D 10BE CEA9 1B6E