IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 06 June 2017 22:18 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 EC67F1293F5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:18:24 -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 R8Ebm-SuWufJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (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 B26C9126D45 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C6A290 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:18:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybPZzYYgRdLH for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:18:22 -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-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42CF22BC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:18:22 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-f198.google.com with SMTP id f19so38081857uab.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:18:22 -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=ikt78HxWBGl/kz5N6pGcFdwvnMZy89G2UVMnPuS1d40=; b=NgdnlW/KhtcZtYDBsM0ppL/g1r0pCAz1oLl/hBQZKcBn1i9tGR8rzPMvhGy+AmVX+E eEdBhCkTD0FARGRfukC6oEEvn1kvo1yJLbCiPWV6Fv7QRP6NwKFXm6GLYhKBrNZ8M984 vCJG0FDxcg2QBaUo4aCFWtM7ablOm3AYPoDR//lMWGbd3EdzOBCdusSyvtCnfsnxfmV+ 8Pyv1NcHtcAOJQWkvxZ0j+iZsTsl/0s0zIGmvq58uHv1HM8xMvIy2rBRlOuvTjCNwjdK W7ZGWm1RpDK03RmiBNlIOAWQOsZu2oFJHdxmKUsflgOvLkdQ7hcJd5Gq6v8awzNTtWnX dXHg==
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=ikt78HxWBGl/kz5N6pGcFdwvnMZy89G2UVMnPuS1d40=; b=t/Zh0+3SLHvzsLFyroVRlgF7LaoMa1LkezxFEH//hRAggKZv2v8JBl7Nfea72JhEis zxQSvprQtMpLyJCEXy1Q2dyS0tbwSV08yUDoLWJWN1Wxb41ppo8SyS6BB5kQqbjcUKs+ X1i5LjVKlPrPNJp7uV2lrf6aiySS/J2x+WhkucVlNd1fV1IqZWnAQzNIVxnNvzCNJ1Nd UbJirQy3xTZ2b4opxqsKiXyVwZ5ZHWAyw6H88DUaDD5QE4AKwdj5VRssGDZWJa/hVKQw ii6ZL6htY1iHN83jRFdPBgz5VTnl+QaXoW985e2oS5X9aMH90ydcMV+LEQW2McyYCttm ohgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD/RU5I6lbQtYvEPMMTyGAH9Iw9ilF5Om0DwYoChXJ2e6A5LaSX tV8N3ZRGXGbTsQGeLjMoa5zJwMVJeLINeBihvSc5RV04+wAszOv5saFo4cKCnpIz4XVBqjpqwYT gNalK9EbNG7CyFxQ=
X-Received: by 10.159.34.207 with SMTP id 73mr9262171uan.131.1496787501406; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.159.34.207 with SMTP id 73mr9262162uan.131.1496787501259; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.183.11 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <89A69730-B9F3-49B4-942D-EB664A728BDD@employees.org>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170602141259.GD30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr0DtQYvCYLQexhXe_nhb5rjeyhnB4bCveqyO5Xbuwdg1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEdjhsQ3tKPZdbdfF4ArDzw-FZfjQT68gV55Fc-5vzBvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ppM0UF8HoN8PgS7F0iEmK26ebiuJK=tkAdZnuLWpkZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SHASt34ihJmGN0iRFQQzLTMspZfxXHgBjBatXXcRYF4cw@mail.gmail.com> <20170604093119.nt733rb3ymmjssww@Vurt.local> <m1dHTLx-0000DcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <CAAedzxppjnBhVAHF4L4B7WTtwxPGhpOv8ruXOhm=zGwjQ5-OsA@mail.gmail.com> <780257e6-749e-ad9b-4d7a-08e39f46fd1c@gmail.com> <89A69730-B9F3-49B4-942D-EB664A728BDD@employees.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:18:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0k+XRWLcJdwntNjNaa20d2enFKD0v=c8Cdk4cScqq4eA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c04ca4e51409d055151ff8d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9CDTS2Gf2RP_kpknuvlHbt7uEug>
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 22:18:25 -0000

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:03 PM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> >> The only thing meaningfully affected by removing 64bit IIDs...
> >
> > But that is exactly what the draft does *not* do. Nobody would
> > change a single instruction in existing code as a result of this
> > draft. (I agree with you that some O/S stacks may need fixing, but
> > they already need fixing.)
>
> is this draft exactly:
>
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198].  Interface Identifiers should be 64 bit long except
>    when the addresses are manually configured, or by exceptions defined
>    in standards track documents.  For example, [RFC6164] standardises
>    127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.  The rationale
>    for using 64 bit Interface Identifiers can be found in [RFC7421]
>
>
I'd be cool with that! +1

-- 
===============================================
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