IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64-05.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 08 August 2018 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 97ADF130E6A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 z2GGuwnfEqGy for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA0F130DD5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07ACC20491; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 4B944123C; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C231E8; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-farmer-6man-exceptions-64-05.txt
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2G171g3zRyDWE-t6M_2GrzsQUSB=3-qgTqT+RF5ogjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <153357039509.26798.8871624868471873730.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau25-4QqXJa+6H3O2iajnDs7GbOtW8hifw4-2Dt5r1Ufvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcKnkaGWKE9Biq-x3V4uz521KoeLWFbgp3x=cr==GJ0sA@mail.gmail.com> <35deaf47-0b42-962b-1df7-dc6ee506133b@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdSXSADOFMwc8fsvwNN_RHAkuywH7mWDKYcTvah=69Azw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2G171g3zRyDWE-t6M_2GrzsQUSB=3-qgTqT+RF5ogjsQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 10:53:33 -0400
Message-ID: <10256.1533740013@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0gxIPsbWlRznTYuTFWwk0IMzxhs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 08 Aug 2018 14:53:38 -0000

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
    > Personally, I believe that an IPv6-over-FOO document needs provide
    > sufficient justification for an IID length other than 64 bits..
    > Further, it needs to explain how it won't create confusion with other
    > the link-types that it can be bridged with. In my mind this is
    > possible only in two ways, the link-type can't be bridged with 802.1
    > type technologies, or the like type defines a new Ether-type.

Present IPv6-over-DECT, BTLE, 802.15.4 and even RFC8163 (IPv6 over RS-485)
generate 64-bit IIDs, despite having in some cases 1-byte L2-addresses.
Each hopes for many many zeroes that can be compressed out, and/or compressed
using the L2 header values.

None can be bridged to ethernet.
Each would probably have done things slightly differently had a non-64-bit
IID been permissible.

    > With that, it should stand on its own as a Standards Track document.

    > But, that's my opinion, I really just want to do two things, move
    > RFC4291bis to Internet Standard and explain how subnets work so there
    > is much less confusion by people.

:-)
Thank you for the work, I think that we are making progress.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email