IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 09 January 2014 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792A21AE021 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:43:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WGaZV7MeDKUN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358961AE010 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id lx4so2876199iec.23 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:43:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=XHsGJF5ugfeaiNJj1ttpCL8OiDmFyhoa7K42CQIdhy4=; b=eSB0b4rTIr/VZRInGZy8DPg5eFTrIoIjzAAVvMTXiHpqtkAJlQq71vrBtY5au4gNrV qN/vr7JkTiO04xeyI+AoOZZgEc62ec4B2HqFXmdRlIHk+CizrI+tzTlywhisWzOh6KCL GK06d4mJ3GMpcuJkqrPn7sQhLJvug2sDMhdEezubdkan/OViteUERA+JPble8dodnWnJ Sv156iFUS0q+zj82JYWerxd3IEmcC8VW1W2UIqfL4Z3ew1dkowkxOx5kggL+86Lc5joh e63ExTNjrqPhLptdGds7EL9rnMlD6Mt6gS8JbPQckD6ODVhO30mIFvXWx3we9BtEDsMD f89A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=XHsGJF5ugfeaiNJj1ttpCL8OiDmFyhoa7K42CQIdhy4=; b=Mt4hOTk6m7cZFUFpyz91FRuhQmII1bsWd4w/e8IMvD1Bm8RdKbfoo/MuwhjDbVc5L9 wmclV65L/lE0Dgl8O5xRSFeMeHEkNcQGtGxIQOyc2qp2VttUR+7vUPmH+3Yf2b2P8lI3 ViEqBcMMlR5Ia2ay6IeA/TXcijM0NvoLuvsrCge6wcJCVLoQG0r6dEqxsnBzDv3sNLBs GJu0df4ENkwmMEm5HUop/wRQZ8ZOAjLCh5Pa9ee5ucmiqIOOSO4J7zL2n+81g0zHlF3j QRvqe5VS9OioyBrLBVZK4o2/Qd9fieYYcefB2mkMrnBVV0p/xPfReemLyuWk1c1N7PF/ 3UHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkOgxsoqipBhrzptutP2thAcQ4ilD4oZQ9NU/kG0MycNUuU13t4aM8QxDb5XQC+Yz4/vFoKwnZG8Cna62QwqTrQxqPsimz8ykPHceFTLNRjY4XwtkVvOl39pUmDkOW1SSBHX8IeFeM+U/uSKvQ5O1VbK96WlZxKBS52AzEeJmvpFINY8Di/lje1nfwG0MqKK3el+DUH
X-Received: by 10.42.226.66 with SMTP id iv2mr383018icb.11.1389235424707; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:43:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.7.36 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:43:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52C9D788.8060606@gmail.com>
References: <52C9D788.8060606@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:43:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3-dxJgpKkcG3tqn-34g3rn=T2OiKgO8nYYUh9gB70zMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113323b8ffee8104ef809309"
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Jan 2014 02:43:55 -0000

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> A group of us put this together following a discussion some weeks
> ago on the v6ops list about the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addresses.
> Discussion belongs in 6man, please.
>

Authors,

why does the draft say that RFC 4941 says:

"[RFC4291] specifies that a unicast address is divided into n bits of
subnet prefix followed by (128-n) bits of interface identifier (IID)"

but not that it says:

"For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long".

Cheers,
Lorenzo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email