Re: 64share v2

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 12 November 2020 00:23 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 0F1EF3A1252 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:23:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 l_AFCXETtGxZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:23:38 -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 A4B343A1251 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:23:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id t18so1870599plo.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:23:38 -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=oJVX78FvK7EialYRVHGQtvB3Lby9cEgl1rD5iZXBJLs=; b=KDW80adKJp24ue/mUARNwMV/C54WhnQSyn8EMKFkJtjIu3Y2oNLIawrt/OYguhIDtO GWsbv3OZcDNxH7tt+JIEYjx+dz38U/Ug6vwoEzdHRpJigzarlt5LVQdEFSeA+gdfjWhR rvNpYqPfiK+LF2tqM99zMbweLejdQGCRGaUpyBBQwiuWUkDbBhUYrZaKS0zctw0Viqj0 xLJYWB2Jh9X2Fokx9xzXH67S/XDL4aF8+cJQyVQqyR2mfDJohJr6iq8tDbk/TVbeaFVR wOK98Jlwntv1Jn436KwBjNoHHqwUPdLpEMdz4whl+am4NcqN50TR6TYba/+x6wWI13a/ +v5g==
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=oJVX78FvK7EialYRVHGQtvB3Lby9cEgl1rD5iZXBJLs=; b=DCubcjHw8l3tBooEzCGDj+l0SvOcWMcPRUJwat/VFY03tvbqOQPH2pPTBl5JkuRuTb uQbXxbT6i+o/JxlnECxii40+V88ikR3zW/voqPVTICPbm2yNLzb8d8zVjJPMH52HXneo yoO3VwK9WnaGDjjeTO3qC0rhTu3hFThWKCOveIO03NcNa8rU0OnTaHbEHLZPCqQzVLAw fET1cMiN67YpLqHj+su5HUKBv7p8qzqTbK4tsb3ObYm7LF8jOhoadVfdQMXwescxKRGB AK4xLJWIFB616NHvLcI5SgBikL3FY/qQYH9TjagdJtyd3P4Au7j0XxzB/lF1nv+icuyt /qGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IehT2DyTVFt4t/9v4ixoPtTP02jPOjgseVVQaxpXeC/jUVvTM KmFIc+6LxHInHrihnXrQOCi85/7wpPk8rQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyU8e0IiXYXSRoCkGNbw9C5fvySK++ivTdtHL9XcmnpQKpnel9fssLYdzeGLyoh9d0EMs4Vbw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9f98:b029:d6:f124:e297 with SMTP id g24-20020a1709029f98b02900d6f124e297mr23256706plq.81.1605140616344; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 34sm3709664pgv.53.2020.11.11.16.23.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <43ebd660-3df6-bc9c-2ef3-bbfd72a64229@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQRyDDhVtunyCrWDBABG576oi=5xd1Lmz5=QicOJ6YsNA@mail.gmail.com> <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQaMCS+T-6pV=c7M_DL=qCYSdqrsemE8vUYYyqm5Rv32A@mail.gmail.com> <9dd54921-372f-f029-41ec-8eb00c12158f@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05C_rbzigG8H3TbF3NkGg6oj7L4+LVtASdVmpdZ2Aaeg@mail.gmail.com> <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdZzc_baYQWE1phWwpFKMi0AsTMWpq3SWDkUee7qGhYEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b52cafba-6ec5-902e-ac23-fa74012bf47c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:23:32 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdZzc_baYQWE1phWwpFKMi0AsTMWpq3SWDkUee7qGhYEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IVHE-KgASkaVByeznw6r0O0c0Mc>
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, 12 Nov 2020 00:23:40 -0000

On 12-Nov-20 10:33, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:21:27 +1300,
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 9:01 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>        This memo requests the 3GPP to change this requirement to allow any
>>>        prefix size less than or equal to 64 be advertised by the 3GPP
>>>        gateway RA. It also, for this purpose only, overrides the implication
>>>        of [RFC 4291] and [RFC 4861] that subnet prefixes in RAs are
>>>        always /64.
>>>
>>> I think that if we want to gain consensus on this document, we
>>> should avoid overriding/updating/touching RFC 4291.
>>
>> I disagree. The reality is that 3GPP has already overridden the intention
>> of RFC4861 by misusing an RA/PIO as a prefix delegation mechanism. That's
>> a clever trick, but it is a trick, and Cameron's proposal simply extends
>> that trick a bit.
> 
> I tend to agree that "64share" abuses RA/PIO as a prefix delegation
> mechanism (although I'd say it rather overrides the intention of
> RFC4862 than 4861).  But I'm not sure what you mean by "the
> implication of [RFC4291]".  If it refers to this part of the RFC,
> 
>    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long
> 
> then I don't think "64share v2" (https://pastebin.com/duyYRkzG) has to
> say it overrides RFC4291.

You are correct. It's more what in English we call a "sidestep".

   Brian

> "v2" is still a prefix delegation
> mechanism, so I don't (necessarily) see overriding the implication of
> RFC4291 just like RFC3633 (or RFC8415) doesn't override it simply
> because it can delegate non /64 prefixes starting with bits 000.  If,
> for example, 64share v2 stated the host should auto-configure an
> address from (e.g.)  2001:db8:1::/48 by appending a 80-bit identifier,
> then, yes, it would override the intent of RFC4291.  But from my quick
> read of the draft of draft, it doesn't say anything like that.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>