IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 A2BCB12941E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:33:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 3QTalUwrBXlS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:33:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B53461293F4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 01:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v239XDm1007312 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:33:13 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B0C13201328 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:33:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6552204277 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:33:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v239XDKb028445 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:33:13 +0100
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96ab8237-7e31-a6cf-e860-b842f975c53d@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:33:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SUcilKd5ktCILkpbviV8_13chnc>
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, 03 Mar 2017 09:33:18 -0000


Le 03/03/2017 à 02:29, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 03/03/2017 13:34, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David
>> Farmer
>>
>>> 3. IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits
>>
>> I think that RFC 4291 bis should not retain a constraint that has
>> been applied so far, out of convenience, in the earliest stages of
>> IPv6 deployment.
>
> Agreed. And I think there are actually two things to say here:
>
> 3.1. Any IPv6-over-foo spec must specify a recommended IID length.
> 3.2. In the absence of such a spec, the recommended IID length is 64
> bits.

Sounds promising.

But how about the links which dont specify IPv6-over-foo and simply
assume IPv6-over-Ethernet (e.g.g USB, cellular)?  Or should we start
writing IPv6-over-foo documents?

How about Ethernet links 2 hops away from the edge of the cellular
network assigning only one /64.  Can I write an
IPv6-over-Ethernet-2hop-away-from-cellular-edge?  Can I write there the
IID could be 4?

Alex

>
> Again, that breaks no running code, and it respects the
> architectural statement that prefix_length + IID_length == 128, and
> the use of CIDR routing and variable-length subnet masks.
>
> Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email