IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 17 January 2017 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 AD31B12949D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 6R7y9T6FCIre for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (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 23490129449 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDFE989 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:32:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VzMN0Mom3ijX for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:32:45 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com (mail-vk0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CDFD970 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:32:45 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 78so21116312vkj.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uLBf+Cq9ZbWDt8Qx9VDEZhdY1zs5CzkVoJPbYeUy/4U=; b=nEatuTePSDw1Q0xIkXOLdTLSx/EXwuGiQfdu9icwvTl1GgB+v39HcJhQD/zjLQc7VU ak6X29AZQc5PO54up+SlbiC4LSo7y2r/hURWdFGSmp7HUbB9EKEYZopHRwmkkSUrEjXB 4Q8ItPw0EyHlBzn03xwINCxyXYtwJqssjBjdPM0BGnoTzAAVGR4gQoXVeqRk9t+pGzy4 imZR/ACpYZtmg+QhSZf0eX53J9W/upZowATay/MXgdSqDjTBgDK/BGlwH4Bp/6cU71OG NEKSVFLNgoJaP0RegnPjgiPGvRNwPfmKN8rJ3kPi+qti4KRg6siay2P+HMVZrKZmfy9r Yw1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uLBf+Cq9ZbWDt8Qx9VDEZhdY1zs5CzkVoJPbYeUy/4U=; b=XWeSXNLhXJ+NpYTbfF/ajw29evTkKTwvfX+VxaMxfu/Pnuk0Klgz3sewVneWYuxzZu TNOdfS8NVeTuj4hJIQRu9MAjf+lxhO98pwP8yCyLGYiQIiJ2dcuw7JLPq+e1nSZXYrAd HdV+gYEnEBfm2yNf4QlidrwbQsE0Rb7frzKraCiwmzTy0rAZUuRaj6f1SV+eX6mcoqCw xpssyc1cpNrK7Hq7QtdLHFdi+1m+0lQqn3tzOvzfCFgrpeioLIiQOPK1gHkvRIISSlBe l5/g2Op8gfA248MeyOywb/upSCo/fmHcJvFD1NN4YsNC43hry2s/Cbl9zSzF7NCoRXu8 WE6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJDQSLz5SFVtAeIRqjbzqqD4jh+1Jx4Cgze9F8bgO4kNbVYim+V+ZWk7emuzRhU45RwKX403nMiLPSzNY5hcHna3S3FojYxNyjh7e1DFveuof3fzn+mO2+GhAv9l1mS9HAI0C03t6ySDCM=
X-Received: by 10.176.16.236 with SMTP id x44mr19889121uab.162.1484627564822; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.176.16.236 with SMTP id x44mr19889116uab.162.1484627564661; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com> <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr25zNeQGvNJa=WzCjKMd9LaYrSwG=o4tUWn1Zc2ASZjrA@mail.gmail.com> <93700502-5d49-86ce-11b0-ab9904423961@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3wyza0_enWErMhmKKkA1ZOXPv5GG8dMT8HUQZsB5--UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxppi5g_S05-m+B2jKMYePapPM0_wMA4XioYgwipwbKVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:32:43 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau36r2UgXPfdcdEAJ914QqvVvjGJK+=mgE9Y2tpBiDSRig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cfa089da343054642ca0e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JApiHUqaKml3fJhBHd_qyybt-Xs>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:32:48 -0000

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:

>
> Actually, I think the NEW text is pretty reasonable if we could
> restore the word "required" for the currently allocated unicast status
> quo:
>
> From:
>
>    ... For all currently
>    allocated unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>    value 000, that length is 64 bits.
>
> To:
>
>    ...  For all currently
>    allocated unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>    value 000, that length is required to be 64 bits.
>
> We can always produce a document that updates 4291bis for 4::/3 or
> whatever we want, and the new text states so explicitly.
>
> But I'm not convinced we should change to text that could be read to
> weaken the current situation.
>

The new text correctly states that 64 bit IIDs are required for SLACC,
reinserting "required" back in the phrase above just brings back the
conflict with section 2.4 and RFC6164, BCP198/RFC7608, because the
statement isn't scoped to SLACC.  64 bit IIDs are clearly the consensus
RECOMMENDATION, other than for point-to-point links, but saying they are
REQUIRED for other than SLACC is plainly false.  Manual configuration and
DHCPv6 with other than 64 bit IIDs or /64 subnets, are in operational use
in many places, this is clearly NOT RECOMMENDED, but it is completely
consistent with all the rest of specifications of IPv6.  Furthermore, if
the old text was correctly understood we would not have needed RFC5942 and
BCP198/RFC7608, therefore the old text is clearly faulty.

I support the new text with the minor tweaks begin discussed,
 s/fixed/consistent/.



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email