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

Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> Fri, 24 February 2017 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <phessler@theapt.org>
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 9B6851296D8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_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 Q4gVyy8MKaz1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gir.theapt.org (gir.theapt.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f0b:8b2::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAC9F12940F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gir.theapt.org (unknown [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/0 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: phessler) by gir.theapt.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 579AC78983; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:59:33 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:59:32 +0100
From: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Message-ID: <20170224145932.GQ5069@gir.theapt.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net> <7960ff2d-359f-429c-6e82-ef592f90bf53@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1W+AVt4Dixo9epB5VazxBsVMD+mrshwaE=n7SuX6eGDw@mail.gmail.com> <5ce34926-6bde-6410-9b1e-3f61e48e9a1d@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yRTUPVTTicaTkA8fAFxHiHxdLG8ZzEHjCUDDzKg5zJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqe=4KruMwWOnSF7RO7TOQTdx48cG_4uSPkGptkG7R4ckw@mail.gmail.com> <b1c3d744-a281-559c-3933-2ab9d2d65225@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b1c3d744-a281-559c-3933-2ab9d2d65225@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QRif0bql14R7_Wx0Vj70-TJGrSI>
Cc: 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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:59:35 -0000

On 2017 Feb 24 (Fri) at 15:44:55 +0100 (+0100), Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
:Le 23/02/2017 à 19:45, 神明達哉 a écrit :
:>At Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:16:46 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti
:><lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
:>
:>>Help he understand, then. There is widely-deployed code that
:>>assumes that the interface ID is 64 and does not work on anything
:>>other than 64 bit prefix lengths.
:>
:>Out of curiosity: which code is it, and exactly what does its
:>assumption mean?  Does it mean, for example, it allows manual
:>configuration of an address but requires its IID length be 64 bits?
:
:For example - is it normal that when manually adding an address to an
:interface w/o specifying the plen, a /64 'connected' route pops there?
:Why 64?  I dont mind the route, but I mind the 64.
:
:Alex

That is an implementation detail.  And, even though I strongly object to
*forcing* it to be /64, I am perfectly happy with a default of /64.  As
stated, there are many advantages to that subnet size.

If you don't choose one, then the implementation will choose one for
you.

-- 
What garlic is to salad, insanity is to art.