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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 6AD2F129B8C; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:19:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 O1yaD72dShZB; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 CDC551297E8; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id z67so7923414pgb.1; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:19:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nh9SNUUpdm9C/xHmZYhUSt0KWBBqFOBF1uOkKXZsXyg=; b=YRIGnOLTUX5FeObc8LFa85D+tuqINzcYE8pZ75+1qr/tTDa/wvxUhDn6zYg+xqOZAo OMs73r+jbmWTOpcp9NhA0AO/ETtCEccF9zq3FjtobEGKcMApWePhGL0Se0OT/QwYS44M 3XPyLFj1ga7ldc6UwyXyg/v4BO+FrAWtHFlBfv8ftAmdRD3lgnXNpBYMQ6PZreRlRf01 kI6BmZB4amzciqHZRsbXlfxxbPGRLnAGQnM9Tr2nte6zzsn5dhw8oGxvFWQqoKTngxH2 c2EwgplWq3NWvKCQ12jliS6tKzdfSBe8V9N6PWbyekqHE3r6v5FBQHmoD4Gr/mYeoYL1 15xA==
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:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nh9SNUUpdm9C/xHmZYhUSt0KWBBqFOBF1uOkKXZsXyg=; b=N50uOEaP5iqCsKGSuQ7y5VSEtM32ZWX1iXFqCsepKSPp5p+mXKqe2rO2lHxrcbrPgk l/6P+01W/ukw6hsbtvxfTNwixPcRTSQHDmU4ce+u5fJ4p8O4PQGMICw58voLm5LIhv1G RRY36T3PE9VPSMbyPwRGIVS4gzTcYuWqb/NNenN8RRZ08nJVUIs4FtvUUjLKBWIKy7X/ cVJm7YfPXJjRMXWy01zPdallFOgAksBiQy2wdh0m29w4qgxnzHrEM6ZdWeAZPXQhzu8N hwTtOZJgBGU0zpvKo8cTGhmUa16d1HujSP5GRq1JhaniRUDZskCG8W4VvugCpAV02xdl l/Xg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nL+f8YfIxohlzQO9dF5siABL6HpdGS49dl7ZRv19FqjbvAXqgqE/d5tHOGWaNsRw==
X-Received: by 10.84.134.36 with SMTP id 33mr20815724plg.151.1487193578440; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.148.112.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y6sm9341615pgc.1.2017.02.15.13.19.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <75196cfa-5476-0c7b-7612-ea2e446fc6f1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:19:39 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3JGNO0Ieh6-IFXh3vpv4ksEZAeI>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
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, 15 Feb 2017 21:19:40 -0000

On 15/02/2017 22:31, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>>>> Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would
>>>> claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> Of course. The point is only that it's a parameter in the design of SLAAC,
>> whose value is set by the address architecture.
> 
> If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of SLAAC I believe you are wrong.
> Can you provide any support for that view?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that SLAAC - by design - would work
with any reasonable IID length, but we've chosen to fix it at 64.

> If I understand you correctly, your proposal is to change the fixed 64 bit Interface-ID length in IPv6 to a variable one, with an exception for links where SLAAC is used.

No. At least not in the foreseeable future. But we should allow for the fact that if
prefixes between /64 and /127 are used, routing needs to just work. That's all.

> How do you practically suggest to do this, given the issues raised in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421#section-4.1 ?

I'm not suggesting any change to normal subnets, where all those issues apply.
I can't see how /64 can be changed for them, without changing a great many
things.
 
> Do you think this change is appropriate in the context of advancing 4291?

I don't think I have suggested text that would lead to a single instruction in
running code being changed.

    Brian

> Do you have implementation reports and are there not interoperability problems here?
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> 
> 
>