IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 11 July 2017 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 7BEDA13176E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kv5EvfKED1dG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (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 B35EC12EAB0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d78so9232446qkb.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=JK8Lxt6iEwlXsQSEMte3bJVo7eruGcNyscXhQyN/ces=; b=GPL+D3VhjImg6CbtWdUVqwTbeqLh8DQg8CAIhR8jBB/1CagAf4GSy+4QJ3suhc6wR0 WpDLRyjv88Jo6srsQkF2OKue6jjHYmdiE33ip4fBELuF54+54NGBb9vEPisQoVw+Os0F 2Z1/IyxoaXRwByOKeyBSBGD874qXWBPs5lQcFnVa3IZTKkrmkTYs5JNNZpcTD0gqEBtj HGqFS3d+2T4/BvOQ6CGrlnCbup7pvflqRmMdKRmskPOXVVfXpPahVumG69zRfDr+ZDkw Kn9VVhxugqh0dfo62rw2VsKsQnceKeKjqg8MgH6akxEed7XupY7dxDIrTHzAsJywzHy3 rt7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JK8Lxt6iEwlXsQSEMte3bJVo7eruGcNyscXhQyN/ces=; b=Ve3egvItT7ARSz6xuI/bYzjVxOyqvqsBYV+Vp69zzsuChoWLY4qCEZLFsJd1l2GuDQ tk3b+oMTXIISgqs+1Nuc7tyb2CQoj1hb2T5McFrkpv+k+05j+PTniKdkDufFMUssVDqI M6mU1u/GsBQhmq6PEm/hfZd17xdMV+8qe87AHgLlmsHc28fZhQM6R2HcTq/1fOfxe/bR riCSIeqZyvvIzT/2XuqPnBTAqIS8gfmy6IS9tRBy2vZHg0Y2E1f9mxbm77rPQQG/orxL 9LZLbW5gRV3jS7Q1oenna++qT4t+ZlAkWzs/AhCZGpevV1+2diXIlgKnyKjYcs1EiHy1 gycA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111cAJmZortjp3xGbzDxHwkfROg3x3C6aL2JfY8IQLyn0WkEOcVg W8GXKzEOk3IajryRtFeN8ZY6CDl5ACRCR6Q=
X-Received: by 10.200.46.100 with SMTP id s33mr1354434qta.48.1499792814705; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.60.44 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau1Xqno2NZuGka1jM2SLW1Y4ioRFZ6tZFf1UsAxwwFd0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd_NRMfQ9f5f2XMUh1Z2XtkrkMmNHK+1tdhN1yS4E4JiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1Xqno2NZuGka1jM2SLW1Y4ioRFZ6tZFf1UsAxwwFd0CA@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:06:54 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: DjibuEw2VEKoG3CCq6WjQWlrqg8
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqec67-s4_FTg2xuGZ9fu8i6Rbja=zsPggayxB=mqez3Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/G0FaFpSwDIjUrkSsAsZ0jG58txo>
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, 11 Jul 2017 17:06:57 -0000

At Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:16:46 -0500,
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

> While that doesn't explicitly say "A prefix length associated with a
> manually configured address determines the on-link prefix associated with
> the manually configured address." in my opinion it strongly implies it.
> How else would you provide an on-link prefix for a manually configures
> address otherwise? Also, I think this need to be said explicitly some
> place. But if you have suggestion to clarify, I'd be interested to here
> them.

Regardless of how strongly (if at all) RFC5942 implies that, I agree
it's good to note it explicitly in some place.  As for suggested text,
I'll hold off for now - at this moment it's not even clear we (wg)
agree on the need for further wordsmith.

--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email