IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Sat, 15 July 2017 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 01568131BF2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 RDjLZ4FiN6l8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 B1D1F129B26 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v6FE3tVD008436; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:55 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v6FE3l25008323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:47 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.239.220) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (137.136.239.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:46 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:03:46 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
Thread-Topic: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
Thread-Index: AQHS/XFmwSXX/U8PI0SttVg+W0fk4KJU6M+Q
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:03:46 +0000
Message-ID: <5ac2b25b9f794362885ad7f5d1c0ca17@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dVbRc-0000GQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b6de67ac86804b3080034! 54f9dc7607e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dWNTQ-0000FNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <m1dWNTQ-0000FNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9Le6elmtX4TnVumoOinJR4lx4bA>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:03:59 -0000

> Just in case you missed it, I'm advocating that 64 bit IIDs only
> apply to SLAAC and not to DHCPv6 IA_NA.

That's good. It's a good compromise. I'm all for it.

> Note that I believe Lorenzo's argument is valid. The reason we can
> expect a/64 to be there is that SLAAC requires a /64. If we relax
> that requirement then soon we will see longer prefixes pop up and
> are back to square one.

SLAAC currently requires whatever IID length applies to the link, which still comes out to 64 bits for Ethernet (but for reasons that no longer apply). So, we have agreed, I think, to retain this 64-bit IID requirement for SLAAC, as a self-imposed measure. Part of this compromise.

We agreed that relaxing that requirement for SLAAC would make it too easy to "race to the bottom."

This is all good, I think.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email