IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 07 January 2014 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 2D7A31AE16A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:36:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 bzdeQKA3sXXX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE7D1AE166 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07Jaajn002577; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 19:36:36 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk s07Jaajn002577
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1389123397; bh=lfCrSQcHTfxEtxmOdLosuU5QXYQ=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=iNXo+0PJz4bsDBJ/3JMU95RDq1cNNKNm3LAKYa1e+DORtCNBXQxHXDtUpnrx3DNAJ EZxo7WMXGRAMGkTVLfqKS8OJEW4KaEHQtFHh41g3EeGsHU5L97PgrRo1nFBuLJMrdV Dt2T0DB70+lhdrru/6Akr7e70BoZ6cYRZFi2kzCg=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id q06Jaa095963482576 ret-id none; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:36:37 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07JZI7Y018038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 19:35:18 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <52CC53F2.20802@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:35:20 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|613a00d8da26c772b9a44ec2346b855eq06Jaa03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|6E0E91F1-AEB9-4815-95DD-A9D111D0A54D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <52C9D788.8060606@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831818E598@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <52CBFF9D.5070301@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D98318190FC1@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <52CC3232.2030307@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D98318191143@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <52CC3D2E.8040005@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181911CF@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <52CC53F2.20802@gmail.com> <6E0E91F1-AEB9-4815-95DD-A9D111D0A54D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=q06Jaa095963482500; tid=q06Jaa095963482576; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=4:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: s07Jaajn002577
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:36:55 -0000

On 7 Jan 2014, at 19:22, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/01/2014 06:49, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>> 
>>>> ISATAP links are very real; the PHY is the underlying IPv4 site.
>>> I don't doubt ISATAP links are real links which transport real packets.
>>> 
>>> But a PHY would have a specific encoding scheme (OFDM, TDMA, etc.),
>>> which IPV4 had not.
>> 
>> That doesn't matter. What matters is that ISATAP (like AERO) specifies
>> the generation of IPv6 interface identifiers which are 64-bits in
>> length - which is exactly the subject your document is addressing.
> 
> I agree with Fred. Actually for completeness we should list
> RFC 2529 (6over4) too, although it is unused today as far as I know.

Yeah, I thought this was a bit of a diversion, but I agree it’s a necessary rathole for completeness, whether anyone uses ISATAP or not.  Likewise 6over4.

So I looked at some other transition tools.  e.g. 6rd says (section 4 of RFC5969) that “a 6rd delegated prefix SHOULD be /64 or shorter”.  No MUST, presumably for ISPs that for some reason just give a customer one IPv6 address.  For 6to4, section 2 of RFC3056 implies use of /64.  Maybe we can just have a short section listing what each mechanism says, where at the moment I think we just have one sentence in section 3 ("IPv6 transition mechanisms such as NAT64 and NPTv6, as well as Basic transition and Teredo rely on the use of IIDs of length 64.“)

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email