IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Wed, 19 July 2017 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 80588131C7E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 2bWIuXodTHNQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (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 F092A131D28 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A9D9BE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:44:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id crM0Hf4Hdf_f for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:44:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-io0-f200.google.com (mail-io0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE6675B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:44:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-io0-f200.google.com with SMTP id m88so929409iod.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=F8eqUKdA3RVoDKU25h4NMaC4VQbNuj6shyvFZomQUsk=; b=EgDwqSocd9+X627CMAVk6Yqk/1AooJM46lzKrX1COZ3jAycwXXG/hqcbUu8WgQgZEQ cCY0B6l0OLxWSzqH25Y7vax/CBdIyS89OZvFTFwgAfaaE2SzVkh0ApBtvSeeVz8Wu4jm 7TrEpR7EPnsoHXhb8yOWR7Z0iJfY0uPS3vgAW4ZTbZTEQxTeAXp4/lJwYJsHO40kzOWs WPmeVUoh14Cv3bLd+X1YHwR9aDCzMTPRguR2WnHX2PkZvdpQmUhQzVR0We/47ZkbsPGH Cgyisfk90JOQU+cDaVd/agmHJr0B3uBlIG2YCXtaRGBkuZlpa7ePnGpg9wFb3GtVldrf fc7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=F8eqUKdA3RVoDKU25h4NMaC4VQbNuj6shyvFZomQUsk=; b=VOml75AqYyoXsafGw7VJhHDvpopRJQ2gtTPHoFm31rEumO6dykd16eMTT7kybYN4// JsF9uIoAeGhBrlPhh9bmfyDKSViCTchWiAd0/pyai42vlyBVeAYb24rGZDw6SuOOAqnA xU8e2m+JDSzf5cTSHckkCB/hnb1M8op/brkRuafje+PrdkxLkKvknO/0lP5Il8LCSVyf 6ddo+9c3KgIC72q5LwYIhWflBzwmmV+eDeyG0idr1B0T7NET2Z+7l39FdK4tP9hgFw0F CAGeBBRk/SV4CVcnXLzPWHxBtIsMjPXo4pMV6pPTfUFegMXpu6dkk7f3HPajGrJ++rUK Y7Eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112xyY9vfq9fDU+NZSytLjRqeJJ+69pKTMnxQfRkO4zmjJmtVUrx 02Soi+K6ZABLy69tv/izwuXGjXNkPgQCDz9SFXsdmRO6hgwnlG3kRey+ZD3OFrUecLIkwBEB+24 =
X-Received: by 10.107.138.151 with SMTP id c23mr128050ioj.268.1500471883431; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.107.138.151 with SMTP id c23mr127806ioj.268.1500471878354; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.131.142] ([12.130.118.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i133sm32276ioi.31.2017.07.19.06.44.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 06:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-EDF4C8DD-7D4E-4584-A1C5-44F1B2B554C8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2ijgKn=0J_ypXFQ84ft+TYSknsDWd78mwcUPmeHjCodw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:44:30 -0500
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <84C45918-42F4-4E5C-B1B3-A912E35AF4C7@umn.edu>
References: <20150804195752.5065.13523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Bt4hhBvtSVWrLpns4odzek3U5WJkuQoS1NGsPozW0sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3vVREsYc4Y6AAdDpLKsMjwH_2saS7JTn8P6fRDXRKV7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CD9ED408-9574-4DBC-ADE7-C9D4FD5CB52E@google.com> <88a8e423-535a-d794-6f46-b89daeb21328@gmail.com> <25C70103-5F10-441E-8A1D-D7C7248AC1BB@google.com> <CAKD1Yr2ijgKn=0J_ypXFQ84ft+TYSknsDWd78mwcUPmeHjCodw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/83iuUwrc3KMzKMjm9Tud9irc1ag>
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, 19 Jul 2017 13:44:52 -0000



Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 02:26, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:22 AM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> wrote:
>> If have yet to find where RFC 4291 clearly names the part of an IPv6 address that follows a *routing* prefix apart from a *subnet* prefix.
> 
> There is no name for this concept because it doesn't make sense.
> 
> The zero or more on-link prefixes on a link are entirely separate from any IP addresses the host might have on that link.
> 
> Any address the host has on that interface might be covered by zero on-link prefixes, one on-link prefix, or more than one. Similarly, any on-link prefix may cover zero or more addresses that the host has on that interface.

If there is truly a distinction in IPv6 between a subnet prefix that is pair with an IID and a routing/on-link prefix, purportedly without an IID, that is an important architectural distinction that needs to be much more clearly explained in RFC4291bis.  

In the current text, this point is either way too subtle or missing all together. In fact I believe at least the diagrams in section 2.4, mislead casual readers to the exact opposite conclusion, maybe even some careful readers too. :)

I think it is important to the understanding of the IPv6 Addressing Architecture that this gets clarified prior to moving to Internet Standard, otherwise I suspect there will be continued misunderstanding of this distinction.

David Farmer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email