IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 21 July 2017 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 0413C129AD2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 BE0UOYEO2ceM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (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 48DD0124E15 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 123so32976890pgj.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n951VIBRXvceVNfvMNx6CtAWZtYBrjLDZiy/5Td4CfM=; b=icoVuqmAfc4G3N+2/nV6YX3lXtl96fWWRlbJoHDJlClgxbVJlCLpIfB2hD8aZPNOPj pYumYYu4Oeoq8SM0JfR4Yg/LhxZUPgPjSqg6vyDEHlsvcoVo0waR2km7PzDhLLC5AiR8 b0HqQsRjtui9jun6xKmXMAYlDgQvyx0wF2b7lkjxMokscIuhXRZPA2H5EGEEKg9LC6/E u4O8xVkdc4uviBUbSX32JWU/dZFJ2kOfXAAMuO/k3XsycOJFeiQoxPt2zzVX9YsvJN5t KJZKur54qFZlUi5t+gzFD/koTVGYC1NrOEW9LkDGciG+3AsbC7Gn81DxWJX9/QhgndWr z9yA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n951VIBRXvceVNfvMNx6CtAWZtYBrjLDZiy/5Td4CfM=; b=A0EAX+RHxu1OB6M4+ZyLqO54HQBlLL6gr/Z6Dj8lgEY3aEVjcyfElfnDEdQIQ5mmdG XzRFKZUi57MiA1jKxoznbFiP1kyxl79b/L07kIV3z6Hh0DSxNWNKr4fjcRI8YmRFWazl uV/29pdQl39dKlcrNQ8oXtvTs8oh2FoKgeJi2A9R4NLjnLI/uy+NGkRHD5YM7QoBP8rX AwgvfcDUBJQNjKTWy2j5ZYaU2ZWI+qzQPSBC1rQKRcjixgg9TdZ2qyMH0NA+jsyDdeAl HYHcVf409g5fzPa+YZLcnL9H0tWjH2C1wAZgWvGRHuGr4dHhNtxHP6Fa3tRel2KMZm3+ kfUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw11124NWZV+KPKJzLDzL1pQtFR0wX60B18LO2VN4y6Rp8uPAC18Nq Pq/7JNajnRAlyAma57Y=
X-Received: by 10.99.3.198 with SMTP id 189mr7198776pgd.49.1500669260692; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4a2d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4a2d:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q3sm9825744pgf.69.2017.07.21.13.34.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Jul 2017 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <bf2ab8d8-9070-c53f-90bd-831630021749@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 08:34:26 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m1dYUCB-0000F6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9xo7vGy9IbahJjIDrTpbT1fXWJE>
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:34:23 -0000

On 21/07/2017 21:26, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Here, I'm not trying to convince you that their view is correct.  To
>> me, however, those "some people" and people like you or Brian have
>> both some valid points, and it's not that one of the views is definitely
>> correct and the other is completely wrong.  The difference of the
>> views comes from the fact that RFC4291 or its bis is not super crystal
>> clear and there is some possible inconsistency between it and other
>> IPv6 RFCs, leaving questions like this one to one's interpretation.
>> It seems that people believing one particular view tend to refer to
>> some specific part of those RFCs or drafts or existing implementations
>> that are convenient to reach their favorite interpretation, but the
>> reality is that other interpretations can be quite possible.  I don't
>> expect either group with a strong opinion to agree with the other, but
>> at least unless they recognize both groups have some reason to believe
>> a particular view, we will never be able to escape from this gridlock,
>> at least in the scope of rfc4291bis.
> 
> Independent of what RFC 4291 currently says, I would prefer IID to only refer
> to address configuration using SLAAC.

Then you really have to answer my question: if they are not called "interface
identifier" what are those bits called?

> What we currently have is that requirements on IID depend on the use case.

If they are called something else, the requirements will still depend on
the use case.

    Brian

> If you use an IID in the context of SLAAC then we have one set of requirements
> (link dependent lenght), if you use it with a /127 prefix or manual config
> it's. This causes way too much confusion.
> 
> Then again I'm of the opinion that the relevant sections of rfc4291bis need
> to be rewritten to be actually readable. The current text should not be
> published as an internet standard.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email