IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4862 and 64-bit IID (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 19 June 2017 17:14 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 18C811316A9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:52 -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 apTcFW_A8qK9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:50 -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 A68FF131646 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0133466F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:14:16 +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 sU1_Ywfue9Pb for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:14:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f70.google.com (mail-vk0-f70.google.com [209.85.213.70]) (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 C51CC7CA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:14:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f70.google.com with SMTP id o68so37814154vkc.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:15 -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=x1xX2bzDbRWNVQ1r7epTb8EzuaSJSQf79s28Yeps9rw=; b=JlOtBzAkvjg56qWCYng5ixYh5Iik/zTJYHDRjbEkKi3M/Hoc1gSe3qz6M9w00nNqBh 403F/8mTGrRrrFlP7hGm6/9U6uN5qlttQUzq6J9xfgkTNglOJB6VQvaYQ2yt1+6lAACa r1zPd38mqTmchz5YbpNdtY9jiYE4K1e5w5/yu8/LoyJSXgF9S7uAWi/4oqAi22yGYeqO rQukc0cUhVL26ShSb4f7X+gIYkdatPwoF7uVK6QIx3KBZ2fjAu3V0z5LHKdqlJyS/2WN J8CUaKKe8IiWqWsZeRYWEXxSBhA4tCrXGSOcI/lfIz4fh0AXZiyeWsvDpg0sjE6QwyiQ fULg==
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=x1xX2bzDbRWNVQ1r7epTb8EzuaSJSQf79s28Yeps9rw=; b=MRvJZQ9noywGyU3Xg6J3P7121L+8YxodVawXTWJnljyWLQkSs4iyV8QkETsBJ3AFMB TiISvOko8Y9DLL2dx2jkJo9JsxjpecLTAp4+XljfsvhfCIUdOvvryuV5WB3Bz4DCxWHO c1kHUuRNVxX8JpVt2hjbKvXPt96YqeoqgTE886RVUMmsn+TRCFw9syPVlvxXXoIXmurZ JvEnHUX46NE8rIjFS+BZsZbdarxcrJNQ+AZAdZH9izwxTfwMsQVPoFIvD7wDHgNaVRz5 2A7KESaAleeDuAsM82oEVRhv2jZYGG7Epl8M/juv0EUsbFq/jfYWummZrAUnSTJ1ApbG n4Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOx9n23255stO3CgE1ZI2XKx1o9F+Z7w0WXk+4/IHQSrn5+jIXTt qDUj0D/LpyfmzyVDoJVomrBpw1qLVcZ33Db6oXd+nJ2jaZJIjFfQI67n/zTjlD4riSNph6+SwHJ ZLEzCi8I3cI3mwU0=
X-Received: by 10.31.98.2 with SMTP id w2mr13921776vkb.24.1497892454886; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.31.98.2 with SMTP id w2mr13921762vkb.24.1497892454690; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.183.11 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxp3JFwu=9CF=k=W2r2z_X9_Yd1kcwtWjn7zhNCoxSCEww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170602141259.GD30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr0DtQYvCYLQexhXe_nhb5rjeyhnB4bCveqyO5Xbuwdg1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEdjhsQ3tKPZdbdfF4ArDzw-FZfjQT68gV55Fc-5vzBvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ppM0UF8HoN8PgS7F0iEmK26ebiuJK=tkAdZnuLWpkZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SHASt34ihJmGN0iRFQQzLTMspZfxXHgBjBatXXcRYF4cw@mail.gmail.com> <20170604093119.nt733rb3ymmjssww@Vurt.local> <m1dHTLx-0000DcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <34A29D4D-3670-40BC-B62E-85C4EABC55D5@employees.org> <426b1b86-575f-77e5-67d6-9b1fef55d074@gmail.com> <04CE008D-7A07-468B-A8AB-5A00C70C68AA@employees.org> <m2h8znsvb4.wl%jinmei@wide.ad.jp> <CAAedzxp3JFwu=9CF=k=W2r2z_X9_Yd1kcwtWjn7zhNCoxSCEww@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:14:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3F_VQP0PdNy8gnR6nKsqjxKk=3ukkA6L7i6hK91FXgSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC4862 and 64-bit IID (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c096f40ac859305525343ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SPINUh6StgEqFB4AimLeLxnnTkk>
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:14:52 -0000

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:

> I'd also note once again that this discussion has nothing to do with
>> the fact that we can perform 'ifconfig en0 2001:db8::1/120'.  This
>> operation configures a 128-bit IPv6 address with 120-bit on-link
>> prefix.  On-link prefixes have always been variable, and they have
>> nothing to do with IID length or SLAAC.  We don't have to update
>> addr-arch or RFC4862 because of this.  (draft-bourbaki-6man-classless
>> -ipv6-00
>> seems to be confused on this point, and I suspect it increases the
>> confusion and controversy in this whole thread).
>>
>
> Agreed.
>

While I agree this is confused in draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00, I
believe the root of the confusion is the use of the term Subnet Prefix in
RFC4291 and it's predecessors.  Therefore, I can not agree that addr-arch
(RFC4291bis) doesn't need to be updated, the updated doesn't need to
fundamentally change anything, but it very much has to clarify this issue.
I think they way to do this is to remove the term subnet prefix when
related to IPv6 and only use it related to IPv4. Also add a discussion of
on-link prefixes.

Thanks

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email