IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

sthaug@nethelp.no Tue, 25 July 2017 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 44E25126B7E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 q3NS47C3avzw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC9A1205F0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2F4E6065; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:08:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:08:41 +0200
Message-Id: <20170725.080841.74682960.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com
Cc: farmer@umn.edu, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <2953666cc36f499199dbbd458fdb43c0@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4f91c2f03b3a4af2941e4c8ceb29ed25@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau2Odwj+gyEBDXv7ETUhgKpxFH_+dKjvfR6Vc5ZB+-R2Ew@mail.gmail.com> <2953666cc36f499199dbbd458fdb43c0@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ANP5q7DDK4MdzIeJQ4d03q-fT6Y>
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, 25 Jul 2017 06:08:46 -0000

> 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.

ULAs work just fine with manual configuration, and therefore should come
under the same exception for manually configured addresses.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email