RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 05 August 2017 00:20 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 7F184129B14 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 IG5n0gAM_Tjk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com (mail-ua0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 687D3129AEB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id d29so13423194uai.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X/q6IFRoG9R1vZXmY/KLEFu0rlgJ8jNIfAviDaIZXBk=; b=UWaCinUFROU71eEVRo/xCCInD5KhX/GbFQ3jmd5fk24vIiTBCzZK3HdTfUxh/l7GYa dFQztolj4O/tfWV9cSQO0W15vQs0QPPpE4H9GZHOqX1Tbti0yKyYB7XrsTSP+0yAEq6e m/Xz9jAe2BEQfAg9ZIp27F7ScJGCiZ7FRyvIXZmH/1Gm0dLQudJxNazOti6cw+fawJJN jpkC91CJfBqKsefb0SdfMNU6ad/YQ5p+jE+3pSYiDaimxKOrGl4KM8etkSbxRZrVoqGa 3iukjsTEnU7vPUhX+cTCeSzei9/Vg20dkPshBTuvDQKGwFZAllaoOuHJ/hiAQBVNq8O1 nD/w==
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=X/q6IFRoG9R1vZXmY/KLEFu0rlgJ8jNIfAviDaIZXBk=; b=bEt7TeU7i333hTC6hPmOgc3LzQQ58llOxudQ7AH+6tMJp0dm418otoC6zux3gHHOnQ p251fnkWfQima9o4zxplF7t4Ndm0zGnh2yEnLjD3hZrhvahKoJfMDpnBCDXFDiDfqMSZ sb/qrj2LwwJ1Ib+rjFusXKg4MUQz0i4ESUr25k/nCmCgn2Y6dM00BDYPpHxdBgssmrOr iHV5QtPGK67zuZm+49bLoimJdzO36IMslF+AVYNKcOmsk7VPXCEMG81gZ2i5IT8uUzn8 hjNZQPmtziFOWjkLqMNVsSkhjooLA7U8xwahsbygSvgACfh/cLT5S8iyuDQKo30J/qlY NlvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jHraX66Ej6hcoLvmvp3UCw6z59CNoCYT35l84CHim2BKtf5OIS CrK2UU72Yh0Q8ZSH9e0WqbIgLhLGHQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.8.81 with SMTP id b17mr3104758uaf.82.1501892398502; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 17:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.18.105 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.176.18.105 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2953666cc36f499199dbbd458fdb43c0@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> <CAN-Dau2Odwj+gyEBDXv7ETUhgKpxFH_+dKjvfR6Vc5ZB+-R2Ew@mail.gmail.com> <2953666cc36f499199dbbd458fdb43c0@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 10:19:57 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xkYwuS0DafzKBnHoWr2RzLEfgC1uadpa4dYOjWeT4vXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f8e20e757b70555f692dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9jhp0DU2v1iLMsPephR5AF3-1qI>
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, 05 Aug 2017 00:20:02 -0000
On 25 Jul. 2017 06:18, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote: From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer@umn.edu] > 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. Agreed. These two RFCs do not differ, in regards to requiring 64 bits, *and* EUI-64 in particular. > If you think RFC 4291 is really saying SLAAC IIDs are 64 bits then so is > RFC 3513 and RFC 4193 too. No, RFC 4291 is agnostic on SLAAC IID length. It refers the reader to whatever IPv6-over-foo RFC, for IID length and formulation. But RFC 4193 (ULA) seems more insistent that it must be 64 bits and EUI-64. After all, as specific as RFC 4193 is on how to create ULA prefixes, there's no other option than 64-bit IIDs, for ULAs. What I am saying is that 6man seems to have come to an agreement that SLAAC should be restricted to using 64-bit IIDs. This SLAAC restriction is not directly related to RFCs 2464, 4291, or 4862, because these all mandated EUI-64. Still, we seem to want 64-bit IIDs mandatory for SLAAC. Why? Because we want 64-bit IIDs to be the "default" and "recommended" length, and because we figure that SLAAC will be the most popular way of forming IPv6 addresses. So, if RFC 4291-bis wants to state as much, that's okay with me. I think the IID length rules can be considerably simplified, compared with the "exceptions" listed in RFC 4291. Instead of "exceptions" to the 64-bit hard boundary, list the cases where it applies. SLAAC mostly, maybe a mention of Ethernet LLAs (although subject to update of RFC 2464), and ULAs. Just trying to be consistent here. Look at RFC8064, the list of Foo-over- IPv6 RFCs that it updates all generate 64 bit IIDs. We simplify in computing by generalising and by reducing or avoiding exceptions. Simplicity makes things more robust, as there is less opportunity for faults to occur (e.g., coding bugs, misconfiguration, unexpected function or system interaction). Tying IID size to specific link layers or specific address configuration methods is increasing complexity, not reducing it. What justifies this increased complexity? I don't think "because that's how IPv4 worked" does. IPv4 is complex (e.g. classes, subnets) because there weren't enough addressing bits. (People may not be aware, the first IPv4 address structure was a simple N.H.H.H format. Classes were introduced between RFC760 and RFC791 because they were going to run out of network numbers and couldn't increase the size of the IPv4 address.) Regards, Mark. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Bob Hinden
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Bob Hinden
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Nick Hilliard
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> t.petch
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Philip Homburg
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> james woodyatt
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> 神明達哉
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> David Farmer
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> sthaug
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> DY Kim
- Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> DY Kim
- RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt> Mark Smith