A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 02 March 2017 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 9A986128E18 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:43:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 XZ9rAnweyFek for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (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 25E85126BF7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:43:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE7DB71 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 22:43:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H1WBzobzwTb4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:43:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f199.google.com (mail-ua0-f199.google.com [209.85.217.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AAD59F0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:43:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f199.google.com with SMTP id f54so58756488uaa.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 14:43:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RrD97a5bvxfS8prcZHSebPOWiKrJVqzq9M2v3iUJxwM=; b=kcxGTt+QXruZiky7JkHtaafXc2gtxTWmSAb9dGmphRA1GFbeC5tE9oL/s+Mqq59ZSB 1zAQeHqrJXUG2TLCtcY9fHYRYEk3FJ5XTx9IYbSwBl8lJv4kohTrzLRVFCWW8ZfxK73B e36I/7nQNUTJTAROqi5/XIR3cbwLBO7NyzOxje7HAqzdgh5ozyKb/qpHf3Ku1Dxc/NgA or5cGwu9FrHCaYFNsV8OVE5T556ZY13lAUrDKGFbHLh3ycWGVHcTMPvQzBhQpgaLFuT7 jWNJuPLw0luRbiM8ofKGFyOHPRtqJrLl4GKhcmRwaWY9xWgQlzsrO09KgKGFaiNSF8K+ OXhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RrD97a5bvxfS8prcZHSebPOWiKrJVqzq9M2v3iUJxwM=; b=FlG1fL8b1gdKpkJU0vSvNjOTAOSzuyK9H+LAiechyD6ciaEwfBr2FvFBUzdTZwIEIc nnZ3UGSy3KSZpKMEo1iKphvaZo+83FD8xcnIbcRZ/fBwGwOp+HVVw7hVFoeG5un5JIVi 0AywTDSnDnmgjf8zBxgYEt8rRCgIdgtMzQaSd1yHNVdHeVryaZ9LMXHiYzQMX3NjdRDu hTG3U6oYtk1vxmby6Fegf5+AhmyBipXgkPvsbdsREj7iNnxNtwrl9CSvWYhvPSr/efis ic0WF0I2xAwzZ9CnzDfPAlTLlHL/9sIVrnMOgSMnwF1H2SA+gPPq2DxlBg0lN90tVTjo GfGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lr6akqTZFBw87ueST6rlBeQE051CjhKL9VQAQu9qKkVrIs9aTjW7wmn5F/6Wsc9sCl5qL5OAK9xUnMPRTfUsvZAF4pDSjiqnAnwmrzqGYmc49ZTYQ+DA/81gCjdWqL/0O5vhgv9erhDJM=
X-Received: by 10.31.204.197 with SMTP id c188mr4208973vkg.31.1488494630462; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 14:43:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.204.197 with SMTP id c188mr4208967vkg.31.1488494630212; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 14:43:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.89.71 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:43:49 -0800 (PST)
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:43:49 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114dd5d0af5e4a0549c7292c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1FxU4oqsFEghtwdqaGyronpJQT8>
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:43:54 -0000

I've been thinking about this, really hard, and listening to what others
are saying. I think we want to say the following;

1. IPv6 unicast routing is 128 bits in length [BCP198], AKA not classful!
2. Subnet Prefixes of 64 bits are RECOMMENDED
3. IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits
4. Say nothing that would imply you cannot configure a prefix length longer
than 64 bits in length, at least manually.
5. Avoid all explicit exceptions, like RFC6164, etc...

How about in the current draft remove the 2nd paragraph of 2.4, then add
the following paragraph at the end of section 2.4

   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any length up to 128
   bits [BCP198]. However, subnet prefixes of 64 bits in length are
   recommended in normal use. Furthermore, subnet prefixes and
   Interface IDs both of 64 bits in length are required when a unicast
   address is formed from a subnet prefix and an Interface ID. Otherwise,
   when a subnet prefix of another length is used then a unicast address
   is assumed to have no internal structure and is treated as a single
   128 bit quantity. The rationale for the 64 bit boundary in IPv6
   addresses can be found in [RFC7421].

Then in the 4th paragraph of 2.4.1

   As noted in Section 2.4, when a unicast address is formed from a
   subnet prefix and an Interface ID, both are required to be 64 bits
   in length.

I think this accomplishes the 5 goals above and is not inconsistent with at
least the intent of RFC4291. If you read section 2.5 of the RFC4291, I
think my new paragraph is only more clearly restating what is said there
already.

Note that SLACC and other things that use IIDs have 64 bits required for
the IID and subnet prefix length.  But, it should also be noted that host
are not required to have any knowledge of an addresses structure including
its own addresses, therefore IIDs are in fact optional.   Additionally, 64
bit prefix lengths are recommend for everything, including manual config
and DHCP, but manual config and DHCP are allowed other prefix lengths as
well.   Also, the exception for unicast addresses that begin with 000 is no
longer really necessary.

Rotten tomatoes and eggs now please. :)

Thanks.

 --
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================