IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 13 June 2017 01:28 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 48BB0129AF3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 O4IwDR7I_Xi0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
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 8D6D7129AE9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f185so52604950pgc.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B67imV4HSh4Xf6s9BMImxRhMZuDhEFqnvZyTV9KKfn0=; b=o296FCwrExcsS9R7adJkr1J6SRyJFj61sXYstukmDszn4n51uNx8eXGemTPmwTsWgP T59TEOLhwhDIG27x0ab0IASKjNQejiLhdwexhT+fci/kWmbw4J8Av+JjNLCmZyxUPGhQ sh8Oe8e9Af7caCLRHnwRw4b+dfzmhskjBGwzZfdNs65jWxuLdZVj9mfX8o5OWp4eyiHy 7PmcIg8GPC2pXl3eytNOvD2xQSqrUxail8AwGM8Dh+AlDvjSbSmrL8/fXewoE9GHX5EF 9dSPbbul2UiHbhPMmRpMfWWWve5HvMG50HYJXXdheof/PPw/XCLIOP0q1k1+yvMLLKUH yU/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B67imV4HSh4Xf6s9BMImxRhMZuDhEFqnvZyTV9KKfn0=; b=OMycd+eI9Y2iNWJX94Bciw09YmduoOlU/2079MNMnFMP7F+pi+dpS9LJB9hQcmLKb3 9aBHhK3TX1qQkaEr4nIkF4PKCucxDjke2FL70KfZIaZe22bZ5MBb9a8CtNShZ0NdRnyk K1i89EtumeXbE+2CTg+3ESppOF2VqrL1bWgOTIUXkpJWAWbjLZw99ldzthfpGJ4DeGnq fLbBYhwFcScv3BmURsU1KUDagnBgrNEyIWZ/d+mHrs1Ujog8fFdMb6jah8ubcuJsmf+V DT3SkJuZpVNFvX0GWofKPb4x1Z26F69xL1yuPh3NZ3jG0HqemJcp+tq9MH/fjIlVntqF doNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcA/sWpoIvEYN/kINbvzEk/flQvjasOdYV42ZsU47MF1ZUHFPJf6 ph8K0SCRY8UTVhy9
X-Received: by 10.99.99.65 with SMTP id x62mr31668983pgb.211.1497317286026; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7b4b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7b4b:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j22sm6475975pfj.56.2017.06.12.18.28.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <CAKFn1SHASt34ihJmGN0iRFQQzLTMspZfxXHgBjBatXXcRYF4cw@mail.gmail.com> <20170604093119.nt733rb3ymmjssww@Vurt.local> <m1dHTLx-0000DcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <34A29D4D-3670-40BC-B62E-85C4EABC55D5@employees.org> <6e03e25e-fd6a-6311-390e-4834281a76f7@si6networks.com> <1B580CBB-B29D-4860-9EC8-BECD1D5E0006@employees.org> <4b2f5200-86a1-7711-e5ff-7436572be467@gmail.com> <E02C4C99-155A-4358-A845-F00F8BB071C1@employees.org> <b3ca5271-21b1-ab33-2dff-82735ebe9128@gmail.com> <235143da452c4ff4aec39a26ba918e7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1489a50a-2616-f9ac-4109-16c595e15f90@gmail.com> <69a56022-98fa-6ff9-add9-0345410ec171@si6networks.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <c4611ee5-89a3-0fc8-554f-9419d4c35455@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:28:04 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <69a56022-98fa-6ff9-add9-0345410ec171@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3grwiW-TrUBpWFBE_9Yjuhberbw>
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:28:08 -0000

On 12/06/2017 12:55, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 06/11/2017 04:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 11/06/2017 12:00, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>>> -----Original Message----- From: ipv6
>>> [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>>>
>>>>> If we remove the 64 bit boundary from 4291, then an update of
>>>>> 2464 will likely result in the removal of any bit boundary
>>>>> there as well.
>>>>
>>>> No, for the out-of-the-box reason. I can't see any practical 
>>>> alternative to a fixed length per link type.
>>>
>>> I think there are practical alternatives, so I too would suggest
>>> not to state flatly that SLAAC requires fixed length IIDs. Anything
>>> that requires RAs to work can make adjustments to its IID, in real
>>> time.
>>
>> It cannot adjust its IID length when assigning itself a link-local
>> address *before* receiving any RA/PIO messages. 
> 
> link-local could be considered a special case...

Maybe, but that isn't how RFC4862 is written today.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email