RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 20:42 UTC
Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 F0C92129622 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:42:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_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 4_tqrTL_zVf0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 B24A812961E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v23Kgi5V065031; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:42:44 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.222]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v23KgYx3064958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:42:34 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:42:34 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:42:34 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Topic: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHSlFBZc0GC3/s6VkejKSh9uOtZ66GDjGtw
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 20:42:34 +0000
Message-ID: <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
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> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ShebCWvnNGu6Qv3fMFHJII5gRBM>
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 20:42:46 -0000
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt > p1. For consistency with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > [RFC 4862], I don’t think it’s a good idea to require IPv6-over-foo > documents to specify IID length. Okay to state that they MAY do so, > but not that they MUST do so, and if they don’t then the length is 64 > bits, citing [RFC 7421]. [*] I'm okay with saying that SLAAC should by default assume 64-bit IIDs, at least over Ethernet and some other link layers, in today's reality. > p2. Section 5.5.3 Router Advertisement Processing in RFC 4862 discusses > at length how to process the Prefix Information Option (PIO) in Router > Advertisement (RA) messages. Some details relevant to this discussion: A. "If the sum of the prefix length and interface identifier length does not equal 128 bits, the Prefix Information option MUST be ignored." B. "The length of the interface identifier is defined in a separate link-type specific document, which should also be consistent with the address architecture [RFC4291] (see Section 2). C. "It is the responsibility of the system administrator to ensure that the lengths of prefixes contained in Router Advertisements are consistent with the length of interface identifiers for that link type. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean the advertised prefix length is meaningless. […] [It] should be safe to validate the advertised prefix length here, in order to detect and avoid a configuration error specifying an invalid prefix length in the context of address autoconfiguration.” Okay, nothing here suggests that 64-bit IIDs should be mandatory. Matter of fact, RFC 4862 says explicitly, Note that a future revision of the address architecture [RFC4291] and a future link-type-specific document, which will still be consistent with each other, could potentially allow for an interface identifier of length other than the value defined in the current documents. Thus, an implementation should not assume a particular constant. Rather, it should expect any lengths of interface identifiers. And we are just now discussing such an RFC 4291 rev. Says quite clearly here to not assume 64 bit IID to be a constant. > p3. There is another relevant point observed in Section 3 Design Goals of RFC 4862: A. "A large site with multiple networks and routers should not require the presence of a DHCPv6 server for address configuration. In order to generate global addresses, hosts must determine the prefixes that identify the subnets to which they attach. Routers generate periodic Router Advertisements that include options listing the set of active prefixes on a link." I interpret that to say that global addresses should not ONLY be assigned with DHCPv6. There should also be a SLAAC option and/or, presumably, static configuration. That comment does not make a case for mandating 64-bit IIDs. Only if SLAAC uses 64-bit IIDs would the SLAAC-generated global addresses necessarily use 64-bit IIDs. RAs could be advertising prefixes > 64, which may be used with IIDs < 64 assigned by DHCPv6, or potentially also with a non-64-bit IID SLAAC? > I think this is a pretty clear statement to general purpose host > operating system developers that Prefix Length advertised in PIO > options, even those with zero for both A and L flags, are required to > be 64 bits on all the typical link types in general use today and for the > foreseeable future, because the IID for those links is specified to be 64 > bits. I don't this this implied. Plus, RFC 4862 is only about SLAAC. Bert
- A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 David Farmer
- RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Manfredi, Albert E
- RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 David Farmer
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 David Farmer
- RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 David Farmer
- RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 David Farmer
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 otroan
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 David Farmer
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Iván Arce
- RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Philip Homburg
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Philip Homburg
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Philip Homburg
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 Philip Homburg
- Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… 神明達哉
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… 神明達哉
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… 神明達哉
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Timothy Winters
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… 神明達哉
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… otroan
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc429… Mark Andrews