IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 09:48 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 84F46129B52 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:48:49 -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 AQFbSrJy9zI4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:48:48 -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 BC349129B4F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:48:47 -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 CF47E83579; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:49:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <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> <FA3032F9-F44B-45B4-9AFF-01EBC84F1448@employees.org> <b1c5c13d-ef69-ef30-546c-9178a2655caf@si6networks.com> <391c730c-fa75-7596-bb6b-383ea6583131@gmail.com> <0b57c999-b5df-8a44-e3fd-55cee628f3f3@si6networks.com> <CAAedzxpNKqjyUmRKK=H07D00ZuVW+HMiQGP5dppmhJckes+hsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <ca94ffcc-0c48-8cbe-c07d-afe2fbbba56c@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:41:50 +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: <CAAedzxpNKqjyUmRKK=H07D00ZuVW+HMiQGP5dppmhJckes+hsA@mail.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/ipv6/96hC5MQQlWymbU9SuSyb7hVSlDQ>
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 09:48:50 -0000

On 06/14/2017 12:32 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14 June 2017 at 18:09, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, Brian,
> 
>     On 06/13/2017 04:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>     > On 12/06/2017 13:00, Fernando Gont wrote:
>     >> On 06/11/2017 09:29 PM, otroan@employees.org
>     <mailto:otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>     [....]
>     >>>  - Removing the constant from the addressing architecture will
>     likely set these changes into motion.
>     >>>    (i.e. I don't think a position where one wants to remove the
>     64 bit constant from 4291 and expect the 64 bit boundary
>     >>>     to stay in IPv6 over foo is tenable.)
>     >>
>     >> Me, I don't think there's a reason to keep the 64 bit constant in
>     >> ipv6-over-foo documents. Actually, with RFC8064 in place, there's no
>     >> reason why the IID should be link-type dependent.
>     >
>     > I believe that is simply false unless you want to go back to the era
>     > of DIP switches with instructions to users to
>     > a) choose an IID length for their new subnet
>     > b) set the DIP switches on every device to select that length
>     > c) then plug and play.
>     >
>     > Otherwise LL addresses cannot be formed consistently on the
>     > whole link.
>     >
>     > OK, that is caricature, but without a substantial reworking of
>     > RFC4862 I believe that is essentially what we would need, in
>     > an automated version, before SLAAC can start.
>     >
>     > Anway, all this is empty talk as long as the addressing architecture
>     > *requires* 64 bits rather than *recommending* 64 bits.
> 
>     * Mandate fe80::/64 for link-local
>     * RECOMMENDED /64 for subnets
>     * Make SLAAC implementations flexible so that they could do SLAAC if a
>     non-64 PIO is advertised.
> 
> 
> 128-bit IPv4, yippee.
> 
> IPv6 NAT, I cannot wait.
> 
> I propose we also change the name of the working group while we're at
> it, maybe v4-128-man.

If your opinion is that the only thing that separates IPv6 from IPv4
(other than the address length) is the 64-bit boundary, that's quite a
message. :-) Probably more controversial than changing the name of the wg.

-- 
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