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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 14 January 2017 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 BFF06129411 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 UIv_1uiYln-A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22b.google.com (mail-ua0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22b]) (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 23DE71293E0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id y9so60533842uae.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=l+6tCNl9tZh05fHBLrRZXcg/GALSOc5SuKnOPFsnWTM=; b=cFO27kxNBHr9u2GQ3cid1Ox+mzgTlWnwRB+8uM8CIXUNb7ZFqlpgibGU28I1wVtVkf apNUZHZloFp3IgqvodvpUmO2yB9arcFaOPjCbI80ViZv9dVA5sXXHkd+31cmaJn5mw8+ c+xB/MSQ68QmG9KCyfXyRhXYBYMLAyATrxIKwMZZ8DocOoYXYBtsop5NEhDg3oF/mMAl 6tXvuo6MzPW0HoyU4reBxoVaGnkOV3DiJlKlZupJKEnrjAl8IKZVvj/0/+DxqxudcEUZ +DpAGQhvc7KWs9PKVxS0u/HXfR2ZUOZ3yxDE3v/4n9Vk8Jn6Q461PNevIx+kA+R/N1sj qWNQ==
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=l+6tCNl9tZh05fHBLrRZXcg/GALSOc5SuKnOPFsnWTM=; b=nSw+fHkCu6NKxKf+IzCkK6lAp6LRW+/hJ970ry+rSjgAyl5jn8ydN5SOt88ItEoTPv yAUo3yooSJjM/rPifhf6MbBEv6S5tAq+gIjk/WoYeRilm/JlOpiwckMPw7xZOg9r+Xt+ 5AEQMU2oNCyisDY/ro8jNfKO+cER9QQvHbWxoQZ21wzM/vGd5ap9wyzck0AqqEHB+G6B JcMIzw6BnEiDNOjYByVu5iXaBnCQqFDWU3wo1W5X190PNrX3/PQj5If03WQpN9Rlvw/M m6UU6Jw1hAQqDBJdKRk7mUpAaFW+et6BfdjBJBaVLlksciCwWLf4UFw9CbldnI9yZRdm 0+uQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIghlQLeTL80V8cuJSC8rc/ATOIcFEyB7RvCUhp8opLwB0L6Of42+Z/Zu4X2l+H8o+oSe04WCkL1E/p4g==
X-Received: by 10.176.2.86 with SMTP id 80mr14331323uas.11.1484437306257; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.2.235 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.176.2.235 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:41:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@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>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 10:41:45 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wgiY5wXBpJBPmfTGrZWBRtOYGv5G8U5fFMehAtK6G1cw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cf1a854b7f10546167e73
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/KXOmm1xEQ9ABozmu26Wh9Xr0aKY>
Cc: 6man WG <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: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:41:49 -0000

Hi,

On 15 Jan. 2017 06:49, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

A modest suggestion:

OLD
   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.  Background
   on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421].

NEW
   IPv6 routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to 128 [BCP198].
   For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit  prefixes on point-to-point
   links. However, consistent use of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
   (SLAAC)[RFC4862] requires that all interfaces on a link use the same
length
   of Interface ID. In practice, this means that to guarantee
interoperability
   of SLAAC, a fixed length of Interface ID is necessary. For all currently
   allocated unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, that length is 64 bits. Note that this value is an arbitrary
   choice and might be changed for some future allocation of unicast address
   space. Background on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found
   in [RFC7421].


I think that new text is good.


Perhaps a small addition, just to be obvious we have room to change if
necessary.

"Note that this value is an arbitrary
   choice and might be changed for some future allocation of unicast address
   space, outside of the current 1/8th allocation for unicast addresses."


Regards,
Mark.





Regards
   Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------