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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 0B8681294BD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:38:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Zs3cMjOz69FP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 7F73A12942F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:38:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v239c20u011166 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:38:02 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B7356204270 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:38:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1D8203B84 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:38:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v239c2r0017503 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:38:02 +0100
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <2126862bab4f49f492c40639ff1b829a@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9cc7f281-1264-c1ee-46fa-2f591a6c2a9f@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:38:08 +0100
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: <2126862bab4f49f492c40639ff1b829a@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4_C7RhUWukcmSEHX5Wks9YjiHV4>
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:38:06 -0000


Le 03/03/2017 à 03:05, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
> From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer@umn.edu]
>
>>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. And I think there are actually two things to say here:
>>>
>>> 3.1. Any IPv6-over-foo spec must specify a recommended IID
>>> length. 3.2. In the absence of such a spec, the recommended IID
>>> length is 64 bits.
>>>
>>> Again, that breaks no running code, and it respects the
>>> architectural statement that prefix_length + IID_length == 128,
>>> and the use of CIDR routing and variable-length subnet masks.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> I'd be fine with that, but others seem to feel otherwise. Lorenzo
>> and James?
>
> That's why it's called "consensus." As opposed to unanimity.
>
>> However, if a provider only delegates a /64, this new text ensures
>> that prefix could be further subnetted down below /64 using manual
>> config or possibly DHCPv6.

[I miss the original mail from David Farmer saying the above, in the
conversation with Brian and Albert, so I reply here.]

I agree, but that excludes the use of dear SLAAC/Ethernet (it requires
it to be manual config or possibly DHCPv6).

Or otherwise improve RFC2464 to accept other-than-64 IIDs.  Do you think
there could be a proposal of updating 2464 with acceptance of
other-than-64 IIDs?

Alex

>
> Exactly. So, how can we allow RFC 4291 bis to say that 64-bit IIDs
> are REQUIRED? We can't. That was my original point.
>
> Bert
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>