RE: ipv6 Digest, Vol 154, Issue 76

"Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <dmudric@avaya.com> Tue, 21 February 2017 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dmudric@avaya.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 65671129D01 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:32:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cWWlDm754rkc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:32:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) (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 135F7129CFD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:32:41 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2H3AAD5sKxY/xUHmMZeGwEBAQMBAQEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBgxBBYYEJB41ckhaIDI0ogUpDJ4V7AoJxPxgBAgEBAQEBAQEDXx0LgmI9Bgc?= =?us-ascii?q?DAQEBASgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHAIPQQEBGAEBAQEDEigUIBcEAgEIDQQBAgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEKAhIJByEQARQDBggCBBMIFQQBiTQDFQENpCONCSYChxMNg3cBAQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhk2EboJRRoEPEAIBHQWDLYIxBYkPkkI6AYZzhw8BhhZTh?= =?us-ascii?q?EmDRAyGKIpCiGMfOXgIUxU+hkh1AQGJKwGBDAEBAQ?=
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2H3AAD5sKxY/xUHmMZeGwEBAQMBAQEJAQEBgxBBYYEJB41?= =?us-ascii?q?ckhaIDI0ogUpDJ4V7AoJxPxgBAgEBAQEBAQEDXx0LgmI9BgcDAQEBASgBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBHAIPQQEBGAEBAQEDEigUIBcEAgEIDQQBAgEBAQEKAhIJByEQARQ?= =?us-ascii?q?DBggCBBMIFQQBiTQDFQENpCONCSYChxMNg3cBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEdhk2EboJRRoEPEAIBHQWDLYIxBYkPkkI6AYZzhw8BhhZThEmDRAyGKIpCiGM?= =?us-ascii?q?fOXgIUxU+hkh1AQGJKwGBDAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,191,1484024400"; d="scan'208";a="228828534"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest-exch.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.21]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Feb 2017 16:32:39 -0500
X-OutboundMail_SMTP: 1
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-US1EXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.85.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Feb 2017 16:32:39 -0500
Received: from AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com ([fe80::a5d3:ad50:5be9:1922]) by AZ-US1EXHC03.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:32:35 -0500
From: "Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <dmudric@avaya.com>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: ipv6 Digest, Vol 154, Issue 76
Thread-Topic: ipv6 Digest, Vol 154, Issue 76
Thread-Index: AQHSjH1BIG6ShsC3xUiKSaJOwjStraFz+wSA
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:32:34 +0000
Message-ID: <9142206A0C5BF24CB22755C8EC422E45859ACC13@AZ-US1EXMB03.global.avaya.com>
References: <mailman.53.1487707208.8574.ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.53.1487707208.8574.ipv6@ietf.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.11.85.49]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/B34lRc1-OpqVeVTJZ-z0RWja-Iw>
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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:32:44 -0000

hocu

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ipv6-request@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 3:00 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: ipv6 Digest, Vol 154, Issue 76

Send ipv6 mailing list submissions to
	ipv6@ietf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=IYyWeNwPhF8exBVP1TPuSDk-QY8bfibGJ-UWDdcKXiM&s=mg1SXzZY_t_icktvI4hUqFAxMw1-CK2Xi0jyXumYYw8&e=
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ipv6-request@ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ipv6-owner@ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ipv6 digest..."


Today's Topics:

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


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:56:53 +1100
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
To: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>,
	IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP
	Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Message-ID:
	<CAO42Z2z6K9tzYCekbyROXR7J1nB9FW53ncTRrW3p3N2P_6WyRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 22 February 2017 at 06:21, Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017, 18:27:39 schrieb Job Snijders:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:49:32AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> -------
>>
>> OLD:
>>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>>    128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
>>    on inter-router point-to-point links.  However, the Interface ID of
>>    all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
>>    000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
>>    boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
>>
>> NEW:
>>    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. In other use
>>    cases different prefix sizes may be required. For example [RFC6164]
>>    standardises 127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.
>>    For most use cases, prefix lengths of 64 bits is RECOMMENDED, unless
>>    there are operational reasons not to do so.
>
> 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,

It has to be stronger than a RECOMMENDED, because that implies it is an arbitrary choice that won't have any protocol operational and privacy or security impacts. That is not the case.

Have you and Job read,

"Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7421&d=DQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=IYyWeNwPhF8exBVP1TPuSDk-QY8bfibGJ-UWDdcKXiM&s=tKMhz7lU1jvsbTyAi0p0uyswHtV8OgTjMfmYmbCTFWo&e= 


?

(It has been referenced at some point in a version of this text proposed I think.)

Regards,
Mark.



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ipv6 mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=IYyWeNwPhF8exBVP1TPuSDk-QY8bfibGJ-UWDdcKXiM&s=mg1SXzZY_t_icktvI4hUqFAxMw1-CK2Xi0jyXumYYw8&e= 


------------------------------

End of ipv6 Digest, Vol 154, Issue 76
*************************************