Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - timeline

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 March 2017 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 8BD45129418 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:58:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 jc48342xVcBC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D182128E18 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:58:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v297we0h011142 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:58:40 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B6B1201F7F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:58:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225DC203C57 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:58:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.188] ([132.166.84.188]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v297wd1J008929 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:58:39 +0100
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - timeline
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com> <CAOSSMjX4Rq969cTuAU+sqWmW7Rh2-nxjd1vpSkeAevVZTed1HA@mail.gmail.com> <ED8E5513-A522-4D37-A0A2-0960CF3E5394@google.com> <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org> <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com> <CAOSSMjUy2=yguYh6iMmd6O6d91WrdNEFgo9Gn+4urVp33vug2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3397bed0-1ca8-7b62-8215-7561883de4a9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:58:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjUy2=yguYh6iMmd6O6d91WrdNEFgo9Gn+4urVp33vug2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/95hVbmKon_QZz9Jfq1vqMLZDlz4>
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, 09 Mar 2017 07:58:44 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the pointers to the earlier discussion.

Le 08/03/2017 à 22:54, Timothy Winters a écrit :
> Hi James,
>
> Since this was added in the update from RFC 2461 to 4861 I went to
> go look for why this was added and found the following thread.
>
> Discussion:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ipv6&q=Requirement+for+64bit+I%2FF+ID&so=date&gbt=1&index=rJtLf5Krh0X9vg3vYts_xO1oUCw
>
>
>
>
Final Decision:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IfWdv79U0k9PbwK6-lAIk4yeyK4

I think that decision is that ND should work with arbitrary plens, not
just 64.

In light of that ND decision, it is strange to see an RFC at the same
time IPv6 Addressing Architecture mandating IIDs 64 (and implicit
mathematical plen 128).

Retrospectively:

At time of that discussion, year 2004, there was no IPv6 on cellular
links, [I-D]. Since then 3GPP got many recommendations from IETF about
how to run IPv6. The result is 3GPP User Equipment links only support a
single 64 today.

My supposition, and many indications converge, is that the 64
recommendation from the IPv6 Addressing Architecture RFC led to this
undesirable situation of a single 64 for an UE.

If we were again in 2004, I would tell that decision maker: not only ND
should avoid the 64 limit, but the IPv6 Addressing Archi should too.

That would have saved us many recent RFCs discussing 64 (the BCP CIDR
IPv6, the multiple-address per Host recommendation, the why64 RFC, and
many others I mistakenly forgot).

We are now in 2017...

Alex