RE: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers' toProposed Standard

Fred,

I am not suggesting that the requirement that a device support 64-bit
prefixes be relaxed. I am suggesting that the requirement that prefixes
only be 64-bit be relaxed.

Best Regards, 

Jeffrey Dunn 
Info Systems Eng., Lead 
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:02 AM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; The IESG; IETF-Announce
Cc: 6man chair; 6man mailing list; Steve_Eiserman@ao.uscourts.gov;
Internet Architecture Board; RFC Editor
Subject: RE: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers'
toProposed Standard 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dunn, Jeffrey H. [mailto:jdunn@mitre.org]
>Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:18 PM
>To: The IESG; IETF-Announce
>Cc: 6man chair; 6man mailing list; Steve_Eiserman@ao.uscourts.gov;
Internet Architecture Board; RFC
>Editor
>Subject: RE: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers'
toProposed Standard
>
>Colleagues,
>
>I have a question about the following language in section 2.0:
>
>"For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
>constructed in Modified EUI-64 format. "
>
>Although I do not see a MUST in this sentence, it appears that the
>proposed standard is mandating that all interface IDs be 64-bits long.
>This is not a requirement in several RFCs listed below. As a result, I
>believe that this requirement should be stricken from the document.

I respectfully disagree. Without a well-known 64-bit ID
requirement, there would be no way to prepare a prepare
a well-formed subnet router anycast address, for example.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

>RFC 2460, 5095
>RFC 2463, 4443, 4884
>RFC 2461, 3971, 4861
>RFC 2462, 4862, 4941
>RFC 3315, 3633, 3736, 4361
>RFC 1981
>RFC 2526, 3879, 4007, 4291
>RFC 2671, 3596, 3986
>RFC 3493, 3542, 3678, 4584, 5014
>RFC 2740, 4552
>RFC 1772, 2545, 4271, 4760
>RFC 3948, 4301, 4302, 4303, 4308, 4809
>RFC 4306, 4307, 4945
>RFC 4213
>RFC 2573, 2784, 4891
>RFC 4798
>RFC 3411, 3412, 3413, 3414
>RFC 3289, 4022, 4087, 4113, 4292, 4293, 4295, 4807
>RFC 3810, 4604
>RFC 4601, 4609
>RFC 2474, 2475, 2597, 2983, 3086, 3140, 3168, 3246, 3247, 3260, 3494
>RFC 5072
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Jeffrey Dunn
>Info Systems Eng., Lead
>MITRE Corporation.
>(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
>The IESG
>Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 12:54 PM
>To: IETF-Announce
>Cc: 6man chair; Internet Architecture Board; 6man mailing list; RFC
>Editor
>Subject: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers' to
>Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG has approved the following document:
>
>- 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers '
>   <draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.
>
>The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.
>
>A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.t
x
>t
>
>Technical Summary
>
>  Interface Identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used
>  to identify interfaces on a link.  They are required to be
>  unique within a subnet.  Several RFCs have specified
>  interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a
>  special meaning attached to them.  An IPv6 node
>  autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges
>  will encounter unexpected consequences.  Since there is no
>  centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this
>  document aims to create one.
>
>Working Group Summary
>
>  The 6MAN working group has done extensive reviews of this
>  document and it reflects the consensus of the working group.
>
>Document Quality
>
>  This document has been reviewed by numerous members of the
>  ipv6@ietf.org mailing list and by the 6MAN WG chairs.
>
>Personnel
>
>  Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd, and Jari Arkko is
>  the responsible Area Director.
>
>RFC Editor Note
>
>  Make this change in Appendix A:
>
>  OLD:
>  The following RFCs that generate interface identifiers need to be
>  updated if they wish to avoid conflicts with the reserved interface
>  identifier ranges.
>  NEW:
>  Implementations of the following RFCs need to be aware of the
>  reserved interface identifier ranges when they allocate new
>  addresses. Future revisions of these RFCs should ensure that
>  this is either already sufficiently clear or that the text
>  is amended to take this into account.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------