IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stability with IPv6

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sun, 23 March 2014 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963A61A6F83 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 05:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 I6wwiEBWLMii for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E7B1A6F9B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FF7603A; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 05:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=selector1; bh=Bs5CImi9OM/oaMvWLltUl nAi8j8=; b=eStfyK9rT8X/klwJ9YDd/ObZxEPCN2yH1QtEtvT7W3MDt1wnbhjsM 0ZZ1CBsMms1xahRB92zkElPDbQ5N2/xDiCwbQTFW7+54Xd9eNdpWJDsaTUSin06Q j0RdwJ0U1BTaX7j8I8nqYu6bKVjqppSa2CTGcGNdpaeRUR2IJkuGdU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=HbnKmtxpMGZTzVT 2PLSurc/94zQCriBVXOZhtst8VFD4wcjFnFYbDeDFVVwBaRkO6wWOwncK1QHUuwQ dq7ymHcxadyDSePCWQGg2RfwH5DZ/rwu+Ecbn2YVBK1HXPaJEUQSaeraExiY3vJe HEK+JnxY/2HjJeYA6Cl33IrhZZ8c=
Received: from [192.168.10.61] (unknown [195.159.143.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9C185FBF; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 05:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_75BB9DB8-BD17-4D6B-A39C-DB033FBE5832"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: A Plea for Architectural & Specification Stability with IPv6
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <84411F3C-455C-4382-88E2-8EE397A907B9@gdt.id.au>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:42:34 +0100
Message-Id: <0E222788-7CDA-4962-B03B-BD069956A471@employees.org>
References: <E2C06D73-99FF-42B5-A3BE-337C307BCB0E@gmail.com> <84411F3C-455C-4382-88E2-8EE397A907B9@gdt.id.au>
To: Glen Turner <gdt@gdt.id.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4pKvGqcoNMnWfoPE1k82uCiEZis
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:42:39 -0000

Glen,

> As one small example, we were happily using ::1, ::2, … for router addressing on EUI-64 subnets. This is operationally nice, as IP addressing ends up in various places in a router configuration and being able to swap out a failed interface without needing to check to see if the configuration may need altering is robust.
> 
> Recently a vendor which used to support this no longer does: the router's address is formed using its MAC address if EUI-64 is configured, there is no override. When we lodged a bug we were informed that the change was deliberate, to track changes in IPv6 specifications. I didn't pursue this with the vendor further, but it is a good demonstration of the risks of altering the IPv6 specification at this stage of its deployment.

that seems like a misunderstanding. manual configuration of addresses has always been part of the IPv6 addressing architecture.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email