IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-naveen-slaac-prefix-management-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 22 November 2018 04:37 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 181F412D4ED; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:37:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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] 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 dR8tpVaNwgs2; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 63BE712008A; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:37:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id e5so8558500plb.5; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:37:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hdcV4l2hU87WVvoP/FijnCka1sqjFa0zhXEYJMR2XuY=; b=hmzT0Lr8ZM2ty3YdgNO77VyhvhKbnR+ENyA4ixJoVq8nlId8Njp4S0XI/GCD+kpi11 0VASKcIYE+Wy6j/LGzyXK90wX4ofAtqzqDNEnn4eaCkKvqcqKuAKjKde7brXiapBb5RC lCJcwHs25EH3mHjTGKMkkmNC4PaForO0bQOTUh3kpnZzjEhLn6slHohUXGPd599bRT/g yuzZEqbdLKC78obS0URfnspyR+76Lpwuf37yCGFumPcYNZehzSRhejGMO59toWCHEBA8 P/B3cDZ4bKL16w1jFbzAQ6LS2ARM5tl/mtnRb3KALlKX6/s1dZcxosyFvF9XOAqhVulP SqIg==
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:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hdcV4l2hU87WVvoP/FijnCka1sqjFa0zhXEYJMR2XuY=; b=Y7uM3tePcIoJvzWuj0gVBzcBSovbcyuTvGcAJnF5E1FgjnbEmZ90yTG2xhgwV5+UIw WfPkIU5A45+415Inieo4kV2Gq/8C/QzU2ghnA0Uuldz01Ntdvx9jwrnfCIFjygnrls6F QcVGzN52I+4Ior4ZGAe4yrskVfmanl66Nec5ZEpH+jD5QUVP6q+1Ge94Zt8ZywZneNjZ RwLwVKDFI9CKGwuFMLjqwvbfCEJCa3fVRREpaNHJ6JHMj6D6orOusRDKXCKkQVXsj5rk H+nQMivEK9Xbv1omoQKJ8AypLKORdc4mdFydhzwK7khyTqAkhMPMucfziUcVnHwpUP8/ dysA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZKYei9eA0RSwCCcXguA/p9eim+Y0ITJ7I3Xc8gEipLQ7wzCUjS iIGr8CP1VQIhIsQDMosalKqA9neK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XabgbnAii+HfWcMqEriEWjo/eMDZLTr8XkeWdn/iOJkbg/rqFKXYUQU2PJ6soeZqzh8E6vtQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d01:: with SMTP id 1mr9867145plu.127.1542861428600; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.76.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p83sm71761335pfi.85.2018.11.21.20.37.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-naveen-slaac-prefix-management-00.txt
To: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com>
Cc: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <154155148848.30897.17784898234776136208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8d3cab11459e4276825c644154fd1b0e@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <c31171cd-8de1-d613-60fb-7b4c5d63c831@gmail.com> <CANFmOtmpNjxfpPF-2JL1QMEo2Dkh1owpVtgRxWtgve8-SmxT2A@mail.gmail.com> <7cfcb7b21b1f498e880d00d11b0adfad@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <79f505f6-94e6-4570-0e77-d21e0d7c77e1@gmail.com> <CANFmOtmu6jsSx6z3mZRTkM95D-c6i=D7OJTDKgYCuA76-N9qXQ@mail.gmail.com> <995ff903-1df6-225a-8aaa-813db45d1dd2@gmail.com> <CANFmOt=VYMgPTL1SH6hsBCDEtZBAL9v_1k5a2QW0M7A-TRaXPA@mail.gmail.com> <50c10934-6ca8-00d0-73bd-cc6cf19ed213@gmail.com> <CANFmOt=DSi0Y=jBoNJFtFaJHDzFJ+61ZAN0L2a94efnfMBMh1w@mail.gmail.com> <57b98143-1db3-9fcb-6d2b-4a0937ec00c9@gmail.com> <CANFmOtkDWQ83ZwBkXo8umhFzDfdWO+dXv4uR1ErrEpbND8AWmA@mail.gmail.com> <aa2885ee3fc844beb1df37ad6ff44dff@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <68b85f05-b76c-df73-5f91-2de4853779ac@gmail.com> <CANFmOtmF-QnPS_=fNa1vU59nGLXxBOdAQjUoEaf3cUp0DbQHCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1c499204-908f-3575-a15d-03b84495b51b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 17:37:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANFmOtmF-QnPS_=fNa1vU59nGLXxBOdAQjUoEaf3cUp0DbQHCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FFFdZkcWEEO1JsMrWq1PimCTcbI>
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 04:37:11 -0000

Naveen,

On 2018-11-22 15:36, Naveen Kottapalli wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Is there a case where a CPE would require a prefix > 64 bit?

That isn't our business when designing a general prefix delegation
mechanism. The architecture is clear; please see RFC7608 (BCP198)
for background.

As long as the prefix length for SLAAC is defined as /64, that
is the longest we will see, but who knows what it will be 50 years
from now?

    Brian

> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Naveen
> 
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 01:22 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-11-22 03:56, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
>>> I think any prefix delegation service needs to allow for any legitimate
>> prefix
>>> length of /64 or shorter.
>>
>> Or longer. Routing prefixes in IPv6 can be any length up to /128.
>> Without regard to the whole "Why /64?" debate, we must ensure that
>> all prefix mechanisms are agnostic on the actual prefix length.
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email