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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 10:00 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 B70841297AC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:00:09 -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 jitRKEPXhl2I for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:00:08 -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 0B5D51293F4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:00:07 -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 v23A06vP023324 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:00:06 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 739ED203FE8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:00:06 +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 6A07220122C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:00:06 +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 v23A06uo009723 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:00:06 +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> <CAN-Dau0kDKhT97yKBh3eGyaWvT-9XGHzYSV7Xn5YBbRUnmDgCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6ff8b5dd-f20d-ae2c-722f-21385018175a@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:00:11 +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: <CAN-Dau0kDKhT97yKBh3eGyaWvT-9XGHzYSV7Xn5YBbRUnmDgCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6JcDOQky_ZLci5YF1vrtF3JejmU>
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 10:00:10 -0000


Le 03/03/2017 à 03:39, David Farmer a écrit :
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com <mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>> wrote:
>
>     From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer@umn.edu <mailto:farmer@umn.edu>]
>
>     >> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
>     <mailto: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.
>
>
> How about, IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits unless overridden by an
> IPv6-over-foo spec?
>
>
>     >> 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.
>
>     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
>
>
> Because, it doesn't say IIDs are themselves required.  In fact it
> says "at a minimum, a node may consider that unicast addresses
> (including its own) have no internal structure". IIDs are just that
> internal structure of an address, which is by that text is OPTIONAL.
> Therefore, it is only saying if you use an IID it must be 64 bits.
>
> And I'd now suggest it should say, if you use an IID it must be 64 bits
> unless overridden my an IPv6-over-foo spec.

YEs, as long as we are allowed to update RFC2464 with MAY 
other-than-64bit IID.

Alex

>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>