Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 11 July 2017 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 699FF1272E1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 n_WmtH94ozmI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (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 5489512706D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BCF9A8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 04:59:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7uFo5zy7HMdV for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:59:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f69.google.com (mail-vk0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F57199D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:59:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f69.google.com with SMTP id i63so47182110vkh.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x8fAlcnzRyfnUtalXiFmjeLz9Y5rawg2YwtdrCDR59I=; b=jm4kvrV8gcsMXfRkHOXpmj/IupNYJgXQwvLsFgrzW9Csxv1HBnj9MWqarr79G5v8Up jO/E64bPrX7dMGaq9F8CNnNcIJk+o2nmFrK2vBxD6LMx1Jy9fN8TYjgHoOdO9dw1ctJk 2KpviGt2VEyAbnjgNzvP76GZfnIcmUgdahTjzfdphiO5h7AMnvWyNEELgZdwQx87X0wf quRUIfY8pHtBhRkmPLAZVhEuXWlbhmHRbkM5vsmENAu9f4fGkL60ICIOKX8wM0AauFqa W6WwvugLwPo1Fnm12JO+voNgxX+qL8b860seLoTz22y4GI/28CeavatK7jkMH4pAWPpU PKew==
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=x8fAlcnzRyfnUtalXiFmjeLz9Y5rawg2YwtdrCDR59I=; b=Woy/jBIZ17PSuKK5Gej2+sg296jgpQVH+OJ1ubiX4wKYGD3Ubdl4TYlCR5vYvujDTp f7wDD5AtbCmOokqZtoZaXlGXRshs43F3qfWNnAV8Zei9XWv5qr6snQ1Xtwuqmmk+1eW/ s24WumaNT23oMvfoA//MZBcMZUBgpV2bF0j3UO4EJLqGFlDDFxiAtJyVVrIo7XUyjLi7 OXJJfiIO5hO8KJSz0AaBThRJfWNFoB4aSZ33cZJcYURLyEuwnnEI2nmCiGdYe9yWlJr3 Oc0F8hypUmTnxuCF8tP2ZWbBapzPVQYmNtDIp3D/hykG8GP1hnOo1NQ/UhGClOkWWRrq 0vaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw11285CRs9h3wRrcpHAUB2CEwp1jbQtqD1392eF9N9+725U2Eii8a sZaQSd+615LeETL/pKMlRs1Jk/yk3/pUhp9Nu0Poj7K1O1hHqMx718yA7JPgZfJztl58DzByLkX mGf2UTBCxF/JPnZE=
X-Received: by 10.159.37.100 with SMTP id 91mr10715499uaz.147.1499749175311; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.159.37.100 with SMTP id 91mr10715487uaz.147.1499749175131; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.47.144 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:59:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c122da4d61c49055403905d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SOTig3VnwXQnFusEOQ5RjDZD_hU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 11 Jul 2017 04:59:39 -0000

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <
albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>
> > Agreed. On the other hand, maybe rough consensus could be
> > achieved with s/required/recommended/, even if some objections
> > remain.
>
> The problem I have is mainly that in the ebb and flow of these continuing
> discussions, one sees the "IIDs must be 64 bits wide" creeping back in,
> again and again. Where instead, the rough consensus seems to have become,
> must be 64-bits wide unless the addresses are statically configured or are
> provided by DHCPv6. In the latter cases, 64-bit IIDs might still be
> "recommended," but in fact, the on-link prefix length can be from zero to
> 128 bits, and the IID must therefore be 128 - prefix length.
>
> Why not just state those two exceptions outright? Citing RFCs that
> mandated 64-bit IIDs doesn't hold much weight, if the rationale for doing
> so has been deprecated. Or they may be cited, but with that proviso. Yes,
> LLAs and ULAs still require 64-bit IIDs, as does SLAAC (to try to thwart a
> "race to the bottom").
>
> I too was impressed with the thoroughness of David Farmer's thesis, but as
> far as I can tell, it doesn't change the above.
>

IPv6 as currently defined does actually require IIDs to be 64 bits, if this
wasn't the case then you could use subnets of any length without any
special requirements or considerations.  RFC6164 is quite clear that there
are /127 prefixes that should not be used and there are other requirements
like disabling Subnet-Router anycast. However, as IPv6 unicast routing is
based on on-link prefixes of any length, up to 128 bits, limited IPv6
functionality can be provided using any length IID.  In the case of
point-to-point links, the limitations are not a big deal, however it would
be a stretch to that the limitations are not an issue is all cases.

So, how about something like this;

For the full functioning of all IPv6 capabilities, when assigning unicast
addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface
Identifiers are required to be 64 bits long. However, as IPv6 unicast
routing and on-link determination are separate from address assignment and
will operate with Interface Identifiers of any length. It is therefore
possible, with several limitations, to use Interface Identifiers of other
lengths in limited scenarios, these include; 128 bit prefixes, such as for
router loopback addresses, point-to-point router-links [RFC6164], and links
where all node are manually configured.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
===============================================