Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 03 July 2017 20:22 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 4F3701243F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 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=-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=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 YfV_EfK8FQVt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (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 4C119127868 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDB09DC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:22:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FH5itj5OcI49 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f69.google.com (mail-vk0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D7CDAB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:22:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f69.google.com with SMTP id i63so74955860vkh.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
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=L6irSxYauCV9fgJklFNEHdnZ6op0xfAAj5WlJb0w0tQ=; b=CZiLmQI0eE7+/IGAOoK1IF23LcSzet57sK3rCJeHy+4e8jIdBBXDRyQ0VaMRgmwvIk ZOsKdHaORjUmPZYUDEhLociyLs5T88cxIEPP5vZvxT30NgG0tRxOrmHm03Q2/OMI2Pj/ EAJmLT3hHYZMSBFFaXk54tXoKd42adxoZo7+oDSLYYKM80HFsuaxNUppfq3QTa0YWq5b 1/KQ/orzE2ANcVrYVIO8HAYZ7Ad2uEHHcg/0FWZYILRPfjKXF7anZWNxUCNlaX8dyga9 0hsfQ4m59o6j+PrZ2xbkXA9fLeoEFHHgaqMmXvuYb3veIJ1hLF3Wcez4egM6WJdnZufs A7Vw==
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=L6irSxYauCV9fgJklFNEHdnZ6op0xfAAj5WlJb0w0tQ=; b=dDQCdDsvAhv4tCZ/GPdImsNtYjVnSAbHsrVaBUzS/njPL7l8xkDzzTJ0tKCSITy9ER Lz1hKnxBaD31doKyrasZGRdgiF0esbSG7Hkpjld/WURSC+l4amXJQRdDOhi0gUuoXKTN JfqbBQTQ+TfGSVEc9YpWHKp0FDJfkuEeAytrAJd0sEZXXt5tRdqcJb8zhtbUEpFr2hH9 hKhLZIoXMz7qYly9XNjwJEaaS6g3A6G1gUAolxiID5yMztXTtn7FI6EkSZfyk+Vf7B8a f1eueTlvxOK/nm1XX9OEwQ/PSI0KYVedrawobye09sCIDwJoPWkp1NzIJZN8WDLdGcpM 2GCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwXu+6Tg2UFQu+xE/2UznG4iI6VtH3v6jA62yivDZxhJ7kd2nft trkKUx/I/dCCTUoCAx1XD2j/Fo7nNc+flA+su2d8g73vaqV6TIFk1APrSBUgt1imxD30h2lG81k mGb01RLpe8EpUa3o=
X-Received: by 10.31.114.75 with SMTP id n72mr19925159vkc.24.1499113345734; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.31.114.75 with SMTP id n72mr19925147vkc.24.1499113345495; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.47.144 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com>
References: <20150804195752.5065.13523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 15:22:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0O6hrxmWiWa7yPNDkq7Dz_m1y8wA7bYx_1wYuTpM0ruw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14949a6fcc9f05536f8645"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JOhh_0NbkaKeQCyUXfcNAT5KCVU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:22:29 -0000

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I published a new 6man w.g. version (-09) of the RFC4291bis draft.  See
> links below.
>
> The summary of the changes are:
>
>        o   Added text to the last paragraph in Section 2.1 to clarify
>            the differences on how subnets are hangled in IPv4 and IPv6,
>            includes a reference to RFC5942 "The IPv6 Subnet Model: The
>            Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes".
>

I was thinking about suggesting a reference to RFC5942 "The IPv6 Subnet
Model", but I wasn't sure where to put it, I really like were you put it.

However, I still think the following paragraph is still too easily
misunderstood to imply subnets must be /64 or 64 bits for both address
generation and on-link determination.

   Interface Identifiers are 64 bit long except if the first three bits
   of the address are 000, or when the addresses are manually
   configured, or by exceptions defined in standards track documents.
   The rationale for using 64 bit Interface Identifiers can be found in

   [RFC7421].  An example of a standards track exception is [RFC6164]
   that standardises 127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point
   links.


How about a note clarifying the intent of the this paragraph, something
like this;

      Note: While the previous paragraph does imply 64 bit subnet prefixes
      are typically assigned to most links. It does not imply anything
      about what portion, if any, of a subnet is considered to be on-link,
      see Section 2.1 for more discussion. However, Router Advertisements
      [RFC4861] specifying 64 bit on-link prefixes are typically
      configured on most links.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
===============================================