Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]

神明達哉 <> Wed, 18 January 2017 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53057129864 for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oOWr9gB4F1Vv for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E43B71297F7 for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l7so3475955qtd.3 for <>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=JtVFZZHznI9mOyo5THB1BgWtbHc9s0xWyUdbclMbfwA=; b=HI2E+ffGRV0xS8S6pZJYpOpfReuikY1vZh4mIE3OuTn/7h0lBwJc8ZrhjrFP32aHfl atDc7ebhvWLIhHymUArlsfdOxfoQ7bMslrDqIrQ7L9VMVgGoLSeYByJ2FlZ3v5IDf3fy M21N5TtMmcPUQKM81IXmuizHoAyXhUGeANtxvbDyjn15knxV4kKpH6tl3opIZS74gs4U dL/SJNa6Kn+Oq5aq9/zNx8RQSzunSUOVPQ6e2Vn2Cyki9u72+moUbtZb0w2vuqNTBKC3 aUgfMgvxiWKuFdTlTohSuUu4JCSkGeBtP7LUHzDDQqBaLH0kJR6gCE6/8rWhjMYgE3jS WNcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JtVFZZHznI9mOyo5THB1BgWtbHc9s0xWyUdbclMbfwA=; b=uP3aICV2fuqPZhO7HvGYs/a57SKg6M6IV+gEAkWZQsyo049laEiqi3jnHG93Xaa79I EBpuj7oqHo/uKxFCQ7zaLDz1lNogC5OqH9GlMX7vQRhFRZ7zEG158yQaB5NBLwp6niKI 08UBnKwH2oZMbz+U/3nCmSP8UgchxhKishoC2inlTp9/T0e6omE4FiSndqMZeO82d66G AVMGhAt5UNEvkYUqXff8kBXfreLm1PprR6+PIU3z/5qPZGCaNkAuFf6aHpwbPPOylMeq KODeYdbVCLBEgoPMx5uQjjD8n0j+tgew/ITayvzoGnQqg3EW11m7IItMiv7z6kROyGjb NghA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLSDG1apFKYIioTgLmFfID+tPq2wCYeB5FkhYGkfkHFf2ts4g5ao6M8rnDE3R4RfWb6TfGnZS0VF/mA5w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 14mr4354593qkd.86.1484767776010; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:29:35 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7tk_S6xIiKR_Frg5XrdzfJ-b770
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
To: Fernando Gont <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:29:38 -0000

At Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:04:08 -0300,
Fernando Gont <> wrote:

> Has anyone tred what happens if a prefix from::/3 is advertised for slaac?

I didn't, but I'm quite sure about BSD variants (perhaps including
iOS) that they don't check the prefix (as long as they are global) for
the purpose of SLAAC.  This is based on the interpretation of RFC4862
that for the purpose of SLAAC the IID length is solely a parameter of
the underlying link:

   interface identifier -  a link-dependent identifier for an interface
      that is (at least) unique per link [RFC4291].  Stateless address
      autoconfiguration combines an interface identifier with a prefix
      to form an address.  From address autoconfiguration's perspective,
      an interface identifier is a bit string of known length.  The
      exact length of an interface identifier and the way it is created
      is defined in a separate link-type specific document that covers
      issues related to the transmission of IP over a particular link
      type (e.g., [RFC2464]).  Note that the address architecture
      [RFC4291] also defines the length of the interface identifiers for
      some set of addresses, but the two sets of definitions must be
      consistent.  In many cases, the identifier will be derived from
      the interface's link-layer address.

So, for example, if the advertised prefix length on an Ethernet link
is not 64, that prefix is simply ignored for SLAAC according to
Section 5.5.3 d) of RFC4862:

      If the sum of the prefix length and interface identifier length
      does not equal 128 bits, the Prefix Information option MUST be

That's the same regardless of what prefix it is, whether it's in or
outside of ::/3.

JINMEI, Tatuya