IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 24 July 2017 19:43 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 C329B12420B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 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, 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 wmIjndQGjE5U for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:50 -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 D635512942F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4586F86E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:43:50 +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 WIgNZ2Ffxn5A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:43:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-f198.google.com (mail-ua0-f198.google.com [209.85.217.198]) (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 1091B1A0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:43:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-f198.google.com with SMTP id f9so91217488uaf.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yr7t6o74AYyPR2IOVaDl7Nc1x46B/lTwqeHxsXsT3Os=; b=F/WAlLCuAjLVYv+H0hmjSLyY0vN7gwY3QUgWmIzBaZCqQG/2BUc+ppN08Z+8RXu48f 1FGJgeoUoWujDjpb1rSbbryAYdn3uWzxtKTx1TIKSRyZCbF+E8DQT3RRd31IlQ59oGXs m37+DNVaGYGh11RF5SECzbBViMt4fSy4HFE3TVtS5n3+xW+vEH8pDNbcHiT+7aQ4aUh0 4MjcmFQuPcK1YwqIKGOgF1EdcWFiKikkpJkw1hY/cdf1eVwe/Ni3EbK8/xqzrdextIlw Xf8BtMuzu7ljerweMf9/dNSsiHtkka595TKv0hTSb/rDC1yInkqnwD4cp2O7bkEWvB8D PRvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yr7t6o74AYyPR2IOVaDl7Nc1x46B/lTwqeHxsXsT3Os=; b=WltyirBwwmevaW48CD49QYwjg5+Sq5kHXEd/yEKvMrPQp2+LcZADCMfI88qSUbOMM1 G7/3bMfgq9+0Gj06hfihioGk0O2fpFCaqBMPF36WO9jHhWeOSCoUQs+sLEV0v/eYNhee cKg4vhyLQDmZ/mXlTXhmbt0o7fd+Ny9oi2CNTMfKb1iSf199+eWp9wA5Etwv5E8EOYFz 9HTyatGkZ9FBF2L/MTZ5VRe0yODhjiOY5Xypn4uojFBkfpscX5ns+9MJemUJenapGfZ/ hjKsDEZZvcn6Wd3hwwyU4tATY+eLe9mOIA4ebMobAnHsI6+XoUG1SbAR32QVFxH1Y9if k+/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112TvZCXCRFLwrUFu8xDu+0bAw0Q12zs0R0HkpQdqJ4nyf+4WgbF nxi+roGMkHs51icujWTaEWFfpsrM3zcvgbjMT1pTyOjfGCr+loN4BCXQt0TJdpAwLfBME8tGLLL I9417/pIYidTnc+s=
X-Received: by 10.176.74.133 with SMTP id s5mr11464961uae.172.1500925428786; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.176.74.133 with SMTP id s5mr11464954uae.172.1500925428607; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.72.221 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4f91c2f03b3a4af2941e4c8ceb29ed25@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
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> <596F63F4.9010501@foobar.org> <fe7a1def-e656-c6d8-5336-ed5595331b74@gmail.com> <ed0fde09ae2a4a598c9a84eb0df659e8@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <69a7f9f2-584e-a2bc-1200-64fad8f9baf7@gmail.com> <652efa7dcb414b7ba6128bb4f93a3d7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfbLzfSYBBuS58CB6EWYkLLoqgGnb==v0CSScfZBFp=HQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1dYUCB-0000F6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <bf2ab8d8-9070-c53f-90bd-831630021749@gmail.com> <m1dYwTM-0000FzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <be9f995c-b717-e87b-3ab9-3a1faa35d770@gmail.com> <m1dZZmc-0000CkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4f91c2f03b3a4af2941e4c8ceb29ed25@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:43:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau2Odwj+gyEBDXv7ETUhgKpxFH_+dKjvfR6Vc5ZB+-R2Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f9058021a380555156f73"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/90ygAwSY8oNw1aA1AIqOIQQ7TJ4>
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:43:53 -0000

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <
albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:

> Oh, on the IID length, as far as I can tell, we have fairly much agreed
> that SLAAC should insist on 64 bit IIDs, and as written, RFC 4193 clearly
> mandates 64-bit IIDs for ULAs, in its current incarnation.


What? Yes it says they are 64bits, but it is just referencing RFC 3513,
which is what I would expect it to do, which is the predecessor of RFC
4291. If you think RFC 4291 is really saying SLAAC IIDs are 64 bits then so
is RFC 3513 and RFC 4193 too.


> Even after EUI-64 has been deprecated, the prefix described for ULAs is
> going to be 64 bits. For all other examples of addresses, the length
> restriction doesn't need to be stated, however all the other "properties"
> of predictability and lifetime should still be a consideration.
>
> >> "Interface Identifiers are 64 bits long when used for Stateless
> >> Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862]."
>
> >> Who here could not live with that?
>
> Works for me.
>
> Bert
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email