Re: 64share v2

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 11 November 2020 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 0EE0C3A0FB3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:33:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 sQ1kPHpMoYCh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk1-f171.google.com (mail-vk1-f171.google.com [209.85.221.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56AC53A0FAF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id w67so832895vke.10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:33:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xqKKHIvP3lsVAVhEJR5PiL7VJc3S9J3QxJDVdrVgYMM=; b=sYGVUjgYC5tWM9j+AHdHIh3oMF4SHh7a7ersQH5mtGNKOiWPRavDVaTdQWygLDKupA 6iPk6EtU8vhPrteEbSmC2wN3w0vLY1kCbenrkTymRx4cLwwj07L9PYafzLwHBm0pXc+y ZEvSH5mZujT4a4fu9r6c/WTa/JoyQlFkPAOJ0KqL7SU/XFZD52Ok8fSerrCMFcYxHTgX nFFX8vXOkTYEOnDOWDWvxbZ4w3K2qVYqr1lFrVaxBvEjycGarmaTyW9EzbcYQefeBQjt FxH8xN9Q5ewww1ghVFg7TxgRmST+Sf0ffImAP33jxN4kecrWe0xZbVNMxZkenKPa3F1x +T4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xPQ7cwE21r9hrvx+ciE/ovuV855b1iQiPyx3woHMv9NvZguh7 xobPl/DwPMOyVVdeE2JCioHRy4scrkgb9LL6rps=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNuuBL3WTAagDHIEMUL9/6YiLEPwI3iNT3IlEcyY8hoNS8RTdO6cxbLf/ouAyb1llqD6S1Epljyf2WjPT4SAQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:d4c4:: with SMTP id l187mr15209310vkg.14.1605130418078; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:33:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <43ebd660-3df6-bc9c-2ef3-bbfd72a64229@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQRyDDhVtunyCrWDBABG576oi=5xd1Lmz5=QicOJ6YsNA@mail.gmail.com> <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQaMCS+T-6pV=c7M_DL=qCYSdqrsemE8vUYYyqm5Rv32A@mail.gmail.com> <9dd54921-372f-f029-41ec-8eb00c12158f@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05C_rbzigG8H3TbF3NkGg6oj7L4+LVtASdVmpdZ2Aaeg@mail.gmail.com> <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:33:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdZzc_baYQWE1phWwpFKMi0AsTMWpq3SWDkUee7qGhYEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SjbT66mNEZ5cloi1QQ-bU1Hxyb8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:33:41 -0000

At Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:21:27 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 9:01 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >        This memo requests the 3GPP to change this requirement to allow any
> >        prefix size less than or equal to 64 be advertised by the 3GPP
> >        gateway RA. It also, for this purpose only, overrides the implication
> >        of [RFC 4291] and [RFC 4861] that subnet prefixes in RAs are
> >        always /64.
> >
> > I think that if we want to gain consensus on this document, we
> > should avoid overriding/updating/touching RFC 4291.
>
> I disagree. The reality is that 3GPP has already overridden the intention
> of RFC4861 by misusing an RA/PIO as a prefix delegation mechanism. That's
> a clever trick, but it is a trick, and Cameron's proposal simply extends
> that trick a bit.

I tend to agree that "64share" abuses RA/PIO as a prefix delegation
mechanism (although I'd say it rather overrides the intention of
RFC4862 than 4861).  But I'm not sure what you mean by "the
implication of [RFC4291]".  If it refers to this part of the RFC,

   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long

then I don't think "64share v2" (https://pastebin.com/duyYRkzG) has to
say it overrides RFC4291.  "v2" is still a prefix delegation
mechanism, so I don't (necessarily) see overriding the implication of
RFC4291 just like RFC3633 (or RFC8415) doesn't override it simply
because it can delegate non /64 prefixes starting with bits 000.  If,
for example, 64share v2 stated the host should auto-configure an
address from (e.g.)  2001:db8:1::/48 by appending a 80-bit identifier,
then, yes, it would override the intent of RFC4291.  But from my quick
read of the draft of draft, it doesn't say anything like that.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya