Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 08:32 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 7F62C129469 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:32:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, SPF_PASS=-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 TgbzgnMlyqKV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:32:19 -0800 (PST)
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 51EB4129459 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:32:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.83] (unknown [181.165.116.69]) (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 99E54801BD; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:32:15 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Iv=c3=a1n_Arce?= <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <8ce32e32-3f71-81fc-6bf5-763a4d85fed0@fundacionsadosky.org.ar> <0a3446a1-c7d2-a914-25c1-2c4cf11041b7@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <a68c1ca5-4d21-7a32-f151-6ee957d4542e@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 02:10:44 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0a3446a1-c7d2-a914-25c1-2c4cf11041b7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/8__SMkKDQceBGpBP-tajViB48sk>
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:32:21 -0000

On 03/01/2017 04:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 06:03, Iván Arce wrote:
>> El 1/3/17 a las 6:51, Lorenzo Colitti escribió:
>>
>>>
>>>         Another thing I think we should avoid is to remove the fixed 64
>>>         barrier and open the door to having this debate again and again,
>>>         once for every new IPv6-over-foo document and once for every new
>>>         address configuration protocol (today we have SLAAC and DHCPv6,
>>>         who knows what we'll have in the future).
>>>
>>>
>>>     Which is why it time to get this right and saying it is now and
>>>     forever 64 isn't right.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree that a fixed boundary is useful or not? For 20 years the
>>> standards have guaranteed that 64 bits of IIDs were available to hosts
>>> that wanted to use them. If we make that barrier mobile, there will be
>>> no guarantee in the standards any more. Who should be allowed to set the
>>> boundary? An IPv6-over-foo document? An address configuration technology
>>> such as SLAAC? 
>>
>> The last paragraph of section "2.5.1 Interface identifiers" in 4291 said:
>>
>>    The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in the
>>    appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specification, such as "IPv6 over
>>    Ethernet" [ETHER], and "IPv6 over FDDI" [FDDI].
>>
>> The corresponding paragraph in rfc4291bis is:
>>
>>    The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
>>    specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
>>    Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] or "A Method for Generating
>>    Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
>>    Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)"[RFC7217].  Specific cases are described in
>>    appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specifications, such as "IPv6 over
>>    Ethernet" [RFC2464] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T
>>    G.9959 Networks" [RFC7428].  The security and privacy considerations
>>    for IPv6 address generation is described in [RFC7721].
>>
>> Don't you agree with that?
> 
> Iván,
> 
> That is the basis for Alexandre's suggestion to simply drop the mention
> of 64 from the architecture: because it's an implementation parameter.
> With my Computer Scientist hat on, I think that's the right thing to do.
> With my Pragmatist hat on, I think stating that /64 is recommended is
> a more practical approach. Stating that it's required is plain wrong.

+1

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