IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 227FC128D44 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 GMTU43y_nK62 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBE2B126CF9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.183] (unknown [105.60.72.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 580C3833BC; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:18:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170604093119.nt733rb3ymmjssww@Vurt.local> <m1dHTLx-0000DcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <34A29D4D-3670-40BC-B62E-85C4EABC55D5@employees.org> <6e03e25e-fd6a-6311-390e-4834281a76f7@si6networks.com> <1B580CBB-B29D-4860-9EC8-BECD1D5E0006@employees.org> <4b2f5200-86a1-7711-e5ff-7436572be467@gmail.com> <E02C4C99-155A-4358-A845-F00F8BB071C1@employees.org> <b3ca5271-21b1-ab33-2dff-82735ebe9128@gmail.com> <235143da452c4ff4aec39a26ba918e7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1489a50a-2616-f9ac-4109-16c595e15f90@gmail.com> <69a56022-98fa-6ff9-add9-0345410ec171@si6networks.com> <c4611ee5-89a3-0fc8-554f-9419d4c35455@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <2dff8594-1d9a-c3f3-4037-113469c6195f@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:05:44 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c4611ee5-89a3-0fc8-554f-9419d4c35455@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6qdYAThBN0MKd2w7hZrzZQQpae0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:17:28 -0000

On 06/13/2017 04:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 12:55, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 06/11/2017 04:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2017 12:00, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: ipv6
>>>> [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>>>>
>>>>>> If we remove the 64 bit boundary from 4291, then an update of
>>>>>> 2464 will likely result in the removal of any bit boundary
>>>>>> there as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, for the out-of-the-box reason. I can't see any practical 
>>>>> alternative to a fixed length per link type.
>>>>
>>>> I think there are practical alternatives, so I too would suggest
>>>> not to state flatly that SLAAC requires fixed length IIDs. Anything
>>>> that requires RAs to work can make adjustments to its IID, in real
>>>> time.
>>>
>>> It cannot adjust its IID length when assigning itself a link-local
>>> address *before* receiving any RA/PIO messages. 
>>
>> link-local could be considered a special case...
> 
> Maybe, but that isn't how RFC4862 is written today.

Well, that's why we're here, I guess. :-)

For instance, link-local only works with fe80::/64, no matter what the
spec says (i.e., shorter prefixes do not work).


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email