RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 07776126B6D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:18:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lFNJgGPNuAz0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEC6F129578 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v230I946060127; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:18:09 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v230I7C7060122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:18:07 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:18:07 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:18:07 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Topic: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHSk6aBc0GC3/s6VkejKSh9uOtZ66GCOwMg
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 00:18:07 +0000
Message-ID: <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/I3ae9a2n1msHCM1M0T_W7M_ZR3k>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:18:11 -0000

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Farmer

> I've been thinking about this, really hard, and listening to what
> others are saying. I think we want to say the following;
>
> 1. IPv6 unicast routing is 128 bits in length [BCP198], AKA not classful!

Okay.

> 2. Subnet Prefixes of 64 bits are RECOMMENDED

If a home or other network is assigned a /64, what do we recommend for internal subnetting, then? Can't be done? Or does the IETF forbid ISPs from assigning /64s?

> 3. IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits

I thought this interminable last call was specifically because many of us object to this idea. With those exceptions such as SLAAC on Ethernet. Or maybe IIDs should not be longer than 64 bits?

> 4. Say nothing that would imply you cannot configure a prefix length longer than 64 bits in length, at least manually.

Agreed, but does that not invalidate #3?

Bert