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

Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de> Tue, 21 February 2017 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
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 C381A12711D; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:21:34 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 77qf8OXyWSd1; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (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 2D9B7129525; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linne.localnet (85.16.19.79) by linfreserv (Axigen) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 28C0FB; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:21:22 +0100
From: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
To: ipv6@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Message-ID: <2683353.FOTFeJBnXE@linne>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.0.22 (Windows/6.1; KDE/4.14.3; i686; git-c97962a; 2016-07-14)
In-Reply-To: <20170221172739.GT84656@Vurt.local>
References: <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr3p=8b9Dmmb9GvGMq1u00xnE2ScmaF_a3FJXiteL=ZhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170221172739.GT84656@Vurt.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 7
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RsPkWF6pEruSwLnCbgrUk51ec-4>
Cc: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@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: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:21:35 -0000

Am Dienstag, 21. Februar 2017, 18:27:39 schrieb Job Snijders:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:49:32AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>; wrote:
> > > ps. The "Write a draft" argument is weak at best, since we are
> > > already are discussing a draft (called
> > > 'draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt'), which is in IETF Last call,
> > > which means it is in a place to discuss the contents of that draft.
> > > No reason to kick the can down the road.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but that's really how it is. The text you dislike has been
> > the standard for almost 20 years, and is it inappropriate to change it
> > in the context of reclassifying this document from draft standard to
> > Internet standard.
> 
> Or, perhaps it is inappropiate for the -bis document to target "Internet
> Standard" classification at this moment? ¯\_(?)_/¯
> 
> Especially when solidifying recommendations in an architecture Internet
> Standard-to-be, the utmost care should be taken to verify whether the
> paper reality (RFCs) and operational reality (what people do, for
> $reasons) are aligned.
> 
> In those years sufficient data has been collected to conclude that /64
> is not the "be all and end all". The current paragraph does not account
> for staticly configured environments in which SLAAC plays no role.
> 
> Perhaps the following suggestion bridges the gap.
> 
> -------
> 
> OLD:
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
>    on inter-router point-to-point links.  However, the Interface ID of
>    all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
>    000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
>    boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
> 
> NEW:
>    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>    128 [BCP198]. When using [SLAAC], [ILNP], or [NPT66] the Interface ID
>    of unicast addresses is required to be 64 bits long. In other use
>    cases different prefix sizes may be required. For example [RFC6164]
>    standardises 127 bit prefixes on inter-router point-to-point links.
>    For most use cases, prefix lengths of 64 bits is RECOMMENDED, unless
>    there are operational reasons not to do so.

Satisfies my desired outcome of the text, but I would like to modify it:
    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
    128 [BCP198]. When using [SLAAC], [ILNP], or [NPT66] the Interface ID
    of unicast addresses is required to be 64 bits long. An exception is for
    example [RFC6164] which standardises 127 bit prefixes on point-to-point
    links. The RECOMMENDED prefix length is 64 bit, but prefix lengths up to
   128 bit can be possible on explicit configuration.


> OLD:
>    As noted in Section 2.4, all unicast addresses, except those that
>    with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits
>    long.
> 
> NEW:
>     *delete, its superfluous*
Ok for me.