IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question for w.g. on <<draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 10 September 2019 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 417841201AA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:11 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 8NhDiEXGzYZ3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (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 28D95120170 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id w13so20963620wru.7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=B4K4Zbrgff5j5ruCuqD189Ib6nTfkk7tTb7BVbds7K8=; b=s/gg1H80R8r8QX8nX5GwIceIJZelW7yBAAqXb/eIDZ2WSGU9/hAObN2ZlPj8yl3VWx D0DppF3OFJpTgpT7XLtkVdgVfNjlVyFZc7NraSmfzU5Sg2wWCSWpMS4x/nZH4Rurtmjd xUAuXZVtqvfj6CjBpyXZEvYWyYf43VXMl6dGl375xPp6+f3/yO16/TD0QmaP6K3MPKPY Z9GU7Nq/BWQAmr21f8dSXZ6KY6ISFq3dXTaHk0OGN27rJXPBZuccdgR7S35GSv9EJIox KkbvIRC02TPsDHVyZhQZmtYhxb3Jxvhfv3srONAd9qn8iFIvu1YuDhmiozoF81FLnTGc 3N9w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=B4K4Zbrgff5j5ruCuqD189Ib6nTfkk7tTb7BVbds7K8=; b=l4r8sCjDylyuyQbIQ2D1FAD84dKPPdTxUcI21/I/VxMedzoJEHQ34Hh8vIBOxzlmYM Ik+WSZW7vyCNmwAzFP0Y6nG+T/O7bvbGuihunj6woUrQUvFgjPYFpLQHk2WtSt3jIFvc Yt6Hj0hhXxaER0AOJ7I1AwywoyyCyMHGdGwxXPpeLAWt104iPxCNBaBJuWsIZHB/exH4 HSmO9/pJmIN+WFJptkPjdndDEyWIfArb+hmWmPqJ05qaazwpuZ39KXYBSXPai65qAJWU q4Nvn904bGiX6l6Zz+KjLSA1jZ4iil7jdavSNc3wk7B8EZvXbZ6R5l0ls+7YHU2i1IGx h6fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBZuK2azXFOq74qWm2v+Gk25INuA3NxPPzSFVLuyiRSB+x5JiT Zw/JRK+A/cKb/4X8x+/68qQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUllDt5zPN4M3WWVK42qB9/Z3mIELskNRxplcNcpcQx6t8rt4zWoS4ZYN6qbu78QJzZjlv8w==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee4a:: with SMTP id w10mr26639808wro.138.1568127847666; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b184sm5907125wmg.47.2019.09.10.08.04.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <4FA67CAC-3FC3-42F0-9AD2-C754EF6717F3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B681B7C1-F58E-4E71-9F65-20125B1C7D1A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Question for w.g. on <<draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:04:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <ac9315f1-6708-abbd-42d9-3fe8b57cf8fa@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <6C018A55-208A-4BB5-9DDD-9C035A882227@gmail.com> <ac9315f1-6708-abbd-42d9-3fe8b57cf8fa@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/C_g2VacdzmCN-YDLhvaqYPTIWYI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Sep 2019 15:04:11 -0000

Alex,

> On Sep 10, 2019, at 4:30 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 09/09/2019 à 20:38, Bob Hinden a écrit :
>> Hi,
>> From my reading of the list for <draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-04>, we have a choice between the format described in the draft:
>>      0                   1                   2                   3
>>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |     Type      |    Length     |           Lifetime            |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |                                                               |
>>     +                                                               +
>>     |              Highest 96 bits of the Prefix                    |
>>     +                                                               +
>>     |                                                               |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     | Lowest bits (96-127) of the prefix (optional, if Length > 2)  |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     | Prefix Length |                  Reserved                     |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> This format supports two lengths of the option (20 & 28 bytes) and allows for different NAT64 prefix lengths in the 28 byte version.
>> Based on the chairs comments and list discussion, the following format has been proposed:
>>      0                   1                   2                   3
>>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |     Type      |    Length     |       Lifetime          |  PL |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |                                                               |
>>     +                                                               +
>>     |              Highest 96 bits of the Prefix                    |
>>     +                                                               +
>>     |                                                               |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> This allow for the ranges of prefix lengths (32, 40, 48, 56, 64) supported by NAT64 (RFC6052) and is 20 bytes long.
> 
> I do not understand why the 8bit boundary and why the 32bit lower 64bit upper limits.  That is my oppinion.

That how it is defined in RFC6052.   See Section 2 of RFC6052.

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email