IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question for w.g. on <<draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 F062D12006B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 W9XycIRrwCwb for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 3F85A120013 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id y19so22442519wrd.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OPyYW1wptGBEC4JBXTRb+12n7V6BPVcRnUuQj0Y5JJY=; b=U/SmupLGAovw3YwaCQATdNSc6vkxORlVkzVMNs1OqKAhcbE9K5gHAf2JVlfJxhlHzk jtN07I9uDncFaRYAwGnjT6Mycy/Go/HXEtnD2a/Cf+cQlQ7RMb1EaNsXclptvwiCwPXe JhdJShAMGyHUIEcIYU+rs+crPnfgLecMJrG2bFI2C0r3IYzBy/6tklYA/014/R9VFPcN TXswtcoDVuQVaJjxwRbujjFlQ1FVrMS3nq7XVtbDAqdk9WQVcHtO5V9dR9wVgg0NmuZk jgbW05H2HcavxjfuIdwANfAb8iLTsChMQcZh2GIuLwURl6NK0oq9iERm5uM54I8s5vs2 2/Yg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OPyYW1wptGBEC4JBXTRb+12n7V6BPVcRnUuQj0Y5JJY=; b=tKhxHCgqeqiGmAwbqIHjaSoixWO4bSALYZEo13o1wlswID0FkKuTbiJLGozSiXeW3M sMEBsMRYKLjpIeScQ0DrwvFGECOdLnJeKeyb1hHBpy5FyI3ncSHr5EsjNQccojoAvGln GDU21jNyiy1sTnMsoJX8c+5s+o3NBKFRf6I0YouvTaeLWSAzVitB2OLF0/Lm8n/Ps/sQ RRcfkSpYbjd0zdBKRxaulSjEPC3Duq2sloemaZCWISfK9e9PAOBI4t9rwDHbpA8nQPtJ cluKR2gA+HwnKlZHGiJRjRhjST0BdZVhKWQXLxUvhPJQU6pzoRQxHfrZt3ZAVVRGg9Oz NCgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWQoXGi+uO3qEzQS76WCsUL0bxmCYJMpapH+kEpZGxrigNwEywH KysLUpbbcVq0pxG8WlVNIcJdK6j/jJ5STe/VHdFHjQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+MoaAXK4EWbhAfi+pSujW1QLyVoTyrQ0YDyUniXDso6AVub/LwcT+m6zKAQ3zmCjt2THarcDzGChK3cpJBTs=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e352:: with SMTP id n18mr17377091wrj.89.1568159894363; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6C018A55-208A-4BB5-9DDD-9C035A882227@gmail.com> <ac9315f1-6708-abbd-42d9-3fe8b57cf8fa@gmail.com> <4FA67CAC-3FC3-42F0-9AD2-C754EF6717F3@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA67CAC-3FC3-42F0-9AD2-C754EF6717F3@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:58:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAedzxq6oANnnAshd=hsPCJaya+QPshka0jW7AfvYHkGrEo-SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question for w.g. on <<draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="0000000000007ce95105923bad26"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4hLmCwPPYaOpW5bf-vBieVJtYow>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Sep 2019 23:58:19 -0000

Actually, the non-zero prefix bytes is extraneous (I don't know what I was
thinking).  Just the length of the option is sufficient to say how many
non-zero (and possibly some zero-valued) bytes needed to be encoded.

And if length=1 (meaning 8 bytes) then it can be assumed that the
RFC6052#section-2.1 WKP is in use.  :D

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 08:04, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alex,
>
> > On Sep 10, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 09/09/2019 à 20:38, Bob Hinden a écrit :
> >> Hi,
> >> From my reading of the list for <draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>, we have
> a choice between the format described in the draft:
> >>      0                   1                   2                   3
> >>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     |     Type      |    Length     |           Lifetime            |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     |                                                               |
> >>     +                                                               +
> >>     |              Highest 96 bits of the Prefix                    |
> >>     +                                                               +
> >>     |                                                               |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     | Lowest bits (96-127) of the prefix (optional, if Length > 2)  |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     | Prefix Length |                  Reserved                     |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >> This format supports two lengths of the option (20 & 28 bytes) and
> allows for different NAT64 prefix lengths in the 28 byte version.
> >> Based on the chairs comments and list discussion, the following format
> has been proposed:
> >>      0                   1                   2                   3
> >>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     |     Type      |    Length     |       Lifetime          |  PL |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     |                                                               |
> >>     +                                                               +
> >>     |              Highest 96 bits of the Prefix                    |
> >>     +                                                               +
> >>     |                                                               |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >> This allow for the ranges of prefix lengths (32, 40, 48, 56, 64)
> supported by NAT64 (RFC6052) and is 20 bytes long.
> >
> > I do not understand why the 8bit boundary and why the 32bit lower 64bit
> upper limits.  That is my oppinion.
>
> That how it is defined in RFC6052.   See Section 2 of RFC6052.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email