Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Fri, 24 February 2017 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 75A2112948C; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:54:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 g9jh6eJ-ZN5S; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646881294A4; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:c505:8fff:dbfd:7e6f] (unknown [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:c505:8fff:dbfd:7e6f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ABA5540A6B; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:53:41 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <2683353.FOTFeJBnXE@linne>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:53:40 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4BB8C710-653B-4A0D-940C-98D865F8D9D1@puck.nether.net>
References: <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr3p=8b9Dmmb9GvGMq1u00xnE2ScmaF_a3FJXiteL=ZhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170221172739.GT84656@Vurt.local> <2683353.FOTFeJBnXE@linne>
To: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/AEXuqZ4lIkp_LNzn_xt3cYN6C5M>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 24 Feb 2017 02:54:04 -0000

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>; wrote:
> 
> Satisfies my desired outcome of the text, but I would like to modify it:
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198]. When using [SLAAC], [ILNP], or [NPT66] the Interface ID
>    of unicast addresses is required to be 64 bits long. An exception is for
>    example [RFC6164] which standardises 127 bit prefixes on point-to-point
>    links. The RECOMMENDED prefix length is 64 bit, but prefix lengths up to
>   128 bit can be possible on explicit configuration.
> 

I’m reminded of when a vendor decided that /31 on ethernet was not a suitable configuration and did not properly disclose in the release notes, causing a subsequent series of outages.

I’m therefore cautious about the usage of any normative comment on bit mask length.

Nothing quite like your interfaces losing their IP config after upgrade because someone decided to more strictly interpret guidance.

- Jared