RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 10 July 2017 21:53 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
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 4E2BA1316F7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 GIcOiIA4Vt8M for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 4838513185F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v6ALrqMY059285; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:52 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.222]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v6ALrmqb059263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:48 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:47 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:53:47 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Thread-Topic: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Thread-Index: AQHS9CLq2poJvbmwO0u0K0qIX4MZRqJNP64AgADKMQD//5pBEA==
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:53:47 +0000
Message-ID: <e6a9592c9fe34cf6971f7251648125cc@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20150804195752.5065.13523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com> <f0af9f838fe747819eaa381f21e1b9ec@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <98f52609-f4c5-1975-8237-6f849479c6de@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <98f52609-f4c5-1975-8237-6f849479c6de@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2BQJ-tSY3VOtTIQ597E-Wnbbu_g>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:53:55 -0000
Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:52 PM > To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> > > Fred, > > On 11/07/2017 03:52, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi, something that I think is a bit under-specified is whether the address "fe80::" > > should be considered as an Anycast address. In particular, the leftmost 10 bits > > are "link-local" and the rightmost 118 bits are all-zero. > > > > Should fe80:: be considered as the subnet router Anycast address for "link-local"? > > If so, I think that it could be mentioned somewhere in Section 2.5 that even the > > link-local subnet has an Anycast address. > > I don't think so. The text in 4291 about the Subnet-Router anycast address says: > 'The "subnet prefix" in an anycast address is the prefix that identifies a specific link.' > fe80::/10 does not identify a specific link, since it applies to every link. > Therefore, fe80:: is logically not a subnet-router anycast address. I am OK with that answer, but if fe80:: is not an anycast address what is it? For example, is it available for use by a specific link-layer? Is it just an ordinary unicast address like any other? Is it a reserved address that must never be used? Is it a nothing? I am hoping you would say that it is available for use by specific link-layers, because I would like to use it in that way. Thanks - Fred > Brian > > > > > Thanks - Fred > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden > >> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:36 AM > >> To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> > >> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> > >> Subject: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I published a new 6man w.g. version (-09) of the RFC4291bis draft. See links below. > >> > >> The summary of the changes are: > >> > >> o Added text to the last paragraph in Section 2.1 to clarify > >> the differences on how subnets are hangled in IPv4 and IPv6, > >> includes a reference to RFC5942 "The IPv6 Subnet Model: The > >> Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes". > >> > >> o Removed short paragraph about manual configuration in > >> Section 2.4.1 that was added in the -08 version. > >> > >> o Revised "Changes since RFC4291" Section to have a summary of > >> changes since RFC4291 and a separate subsection with a change > >> history of each Internet Draft. This subsection will be > >> removed when the RFC is published. > >> > >> o Editorial changes. > >> > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09 > >> > >> This is part of the project to move the core IPv6 specifications to Internet Standard. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Bob > >> > >>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt > >>> has been successfully submitted by Robert M. Hinden and posted to the > >>> IETF repository. > >>> > >>> Name: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis > >>> Revision: 09 > >>> Title: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture > >>> Document date: 2017-07-03 > >>> Group: 6man > >>> Pages: 35 > >>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt > >>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/ > >>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09 > >>> Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09 > >>> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09 > >>> > >>> Abstract: > >>> This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP > >>> Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing > >>> model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 > >>> unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an > >>> IPv6 node's required addresses. > >>> > >>> This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing > >>> Architecture". > >>> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
- <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Bob Hinden
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Bob Hinden
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Nick Hilliard
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> t.petch
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> sthaug
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> DY Kim
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> DY Kim
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith