RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 20:55 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 1872212943B; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:55:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ivaCMy6YKV2j; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:55:34 -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 CB157129426; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:55:34 -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 v1GKtYS5004944; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:34 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v1GKtRPL004750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:27 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:55:26 -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, 16 Feb 2017 12:55:27 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSh24+W9zOXyg8P0euxl6InNxVWqFrbvcAgABkQQCAAAYJAIAAuiSA//+Jk1A=
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:55:27 +0000
Message-ID: <e4bcf222666d46dfaa3fdbcc8ab58d8d@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <1EB5A669-2B68-40C7-B470-453C83DD88E7@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1EB5A669-2B68-40C7-B470-453C83DD88E7@google.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e4bcf222666d46dfaa3fdbcc8ab58d8dXCH150611nwnosboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/L_jf-BCnZeQ4COUnzcV9EesDgzA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:55:38 -0000

My response to IEEE 802.15.4 would then be, but you can't assume that this same IPv6 header compression algorithm can be used in the unassigned IPv6 address space.

The message has to be clear. I think all the niggling objections make matters worse, for the future, in which future we will discover that the egregious waste caused by prefixes <= 64 bits creates a need for another IP version. The assumption that 64-bit prefixes are more than enough can become invalid in nit time, e.g. with IoT device that require multiple internal subnets.

Bert


From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 14:52
To: IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>;
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>;; 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

On Feb 16, 2017, at 00:45, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:

If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of
SLAAC I believe you are wrong.

cite, please.  what else actually needs it?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421

that excuses it.  cite where it is actually needed to do something
useful other than slaac.

RFC 6282 compresses IPv6 headers over IEEE 802.15.4 in a way that depends on such networks always having 64-bit network prefix length.

--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com<mailto:jhw@google.com>>