IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.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 F02EE129648 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:30:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 HpxAsTk4eaIa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62D9129642 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net ([::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #127) id m1cjviu-0000EYC; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 23:30:52 +0100
Message-Id: <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bF054DD66@u-1.phicoh.com
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> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:18:39 -0800 ." <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 23:30:51 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5FdGyKI6WRLIBITZVxZ2vG8qQ_8>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
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 22:30:57 -0000

>    Shorter james: if IETF will insist that I modify my host IPv6
>    stack so that, on Wi-Fi links, it will do on-link determination
>    with prefix lengths other than 64 bits, then I want to see that
>    in its own draft and not in the successor to RFC 4291.

Did I miss a couple of rounds somewhere?

Onlink prefixes come from PIO options in RAs with the L bit set. Since
forever, these options have a prefix length field.

Section 4.6.2 of RFC 4861 has this to say about prefix length:
"8-bit unsigned integer.  The number of leading bits
"in the Prefix that are valid.  The value ranges
"from 0 to 128.  The prefix length field provides
"necessary information for on-link determination
"(when combined with the L flag in the prefix
"information option).  It also assists with address
"autoconfiguration as specified in [ADDRCONF], for
"which there may be more restrictions on the prefix
"length.

So there are extra restriction for SLAAC, but not for use as an onlink
prefix.

Are you saying that your stack completely ignores that prefix length and
hardcodes it to 64?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email