Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt and rfc2464bis

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 28 March 2017 15:17 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 00E371289C3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.333 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, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 g4Exlmtan0FM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 722C2128B88 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v2SFHCTb017157; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:17:12 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CD3520BFD9; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:17:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DDDF207FC2; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:17:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.91] ([132.166.84.91]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v2SFHAbP021079; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:17:11 +0200
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt and rfc2464bis
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <27cce319-18ac-5c0e-3497-af92344f0062@gmail.com> <de4988be-6031-08d9-84ce-21c3fa4f9bc9@gmail.com> <98401ef7-cf41-b4a0-4d11-a7d840181bd0@gmail.com> <1047f5fc-ae40-be52-6bab-27f31fe5e045@gmail.com> <9a94feac-8d59-b153-d41c-04fc371e4db4@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z7v4gDk91b6Of-1sczV88m3B9kzn0MeJU_VBJ416k6Ww@mail.gmail.com> <ae35b45a-0398-840f-fc0d-1f64dd2fcc58@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdZezDRti5LqCKnmU9QkwwhdejP22gXwk3wLKiS0mhx+Q@mail.gmail.com> <dfc8570d-fff0-39fe-a53f-db2c81c0ec8f@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdHv0vw_kFFBZ2NE98t0nhkCR5rz8f=UOpwmvqtVjNqhg@mail.gmail.com> <d7c50847-47b4-48a7-d2c4-7b207898c84b@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdzZ6VBCN_+FvX6Np=21PuuPCFX3mOuZ6MVQd=zj7aE5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfD_wkSgR1XBWSFXeVxZ+Qx+ai2qKoND89NW__m6yG2YQ@mail.gmail.com> <fd f728eb-90f5-facd-3cbe-5f3ba8cac0d1@gmail.com> <E162D74A-7A40-4266-921B-DA55998563BD@thehobsons.co.uk> <1b6154d2-14a7-0d85-7a81-18a5367c0330@gmail.com> <280A3E09-956C-4803-A940-0DDEA5F87A93@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ca142e1e-42b3-e1ca-9419-fc81f51c9b7d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:16:51 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <280A3E09-956C-4803-A940-0DDEA5F87A93@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TdnKau3CrFURwy1k5BVzAuXUS4Y>
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, 28 Mar 2017 15:17:20 -0000

Ole,

With all due respect.

Who do you think I should contact off-line?

I do not agree with rfc2464bis saying:
> 5.  Link-Local Addresses
>
>    The IPv6 link-local address [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] for an
>    Ethernet interface is formed by appending the Interface Identifier,
>    as defined above, to the prefix FE80::/64.

I have not seen a resolution to it.

You may qualify my messages as being too many, but all I am trying to 
say is to clarify it.

Yours,

Alex

Le 28/03/2017 à 08:53, otroan@employees.org a écrit :
> Alexandre,
>
> I think we have spent enough time on this subject now.
> If you want to discuss this further I suggest you do that off-line.
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>
>> On 28 Mar 2017, at 07:46, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 28/03/2017 à 02:02, Simon Hobson a écrit :
>>> Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually one can wonder why RFC writers decided to write fe80::/10
>>>> when they could have written fe81::/10 equaly well.  Or even
>>>> fe90::/10 or febf::/10.  All these designate the same 10bits - the
>>>> mask 1111 1110 10.
>>>
>>> I thought this was answered a good few messages ago.
>>
>> I did not see?
>>
>>> It is customary to always write the "lowest value that fits"
>>
>> I did not know it was customary?  Maybe it should be documented.
>>
>> As opposed to IPv4 decimal notation, in IPv6 hexa it's very difficult to
>> compare visually two IPv6 addresses, and tell which is lower value.
>>
>>> - ie the one where all the non-prefix bits are zero. So fe80::/10
>>> fits - all the bits after the first 10 are zero fe81::/10 does not
>>> fit - when you mask off the non-prefix bits you get a different
>>> value
>>
>> Well, makes sense.
>>
>> But from this to say that LL addresses are _only_ those that start with
>> fe80 there is a long way.
>>
>>> So while in terms of maths, after doing the masking you get the same
>>> result, by not applying the "all host bits are zero" rule - you have
>>> introduced confusion for humans.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> But humans introduce further confusion when mandating these host bits to
>> be 0.
>>
>> These bits are not necessarily 0 - they can be whatever.
>>
>> That is a need to say 'whatever' - not necessarily '0'.
>>
>>> As pointed out, 172.17.0.0/12 might make as much sense as
>>> 172.16.0.0/12 IFF you ignore this feature. Applying the mask to
>>> 172.17.0.0/12 gives you non-zero host bits -
>>
>> A-ha!  I did not know that.
>>
>>> hence why we don't use that. It's all to do with consistency and
>>> avoidance of confusion. And we need as much of that as we can - I
>>> know plenty of supposedly network capable people who cannot
>>> understand the concept of 172.16.1.0/23 being a valid IP address !
>>
>> But there should be a way to say that 172.16.0.0/12 is just one valid example, not the only one.
>>
>> That 172.17.0.0/12 is also a private address.
>>
>> Just like when one types 'ls abc*' vs typing 'ls abcd'.
>>
>> That is the need.
>>
>>> But to be frank, I still can't see what the proposal is about - just
>>> what use case does it solve ?
>>
>> Well, the discussion is issued from the following observations:
>> - rfc4291bis calls it fe80::/10 with a 64bit IID, whereas rfc2464bis
>>  calls it fe80::/64 - which is right?
>> - BSD code recognizes an LL address by its 10 first bits only (not by
>>  64): it drops an ND message if not convinced.  That is reason enough
>>  to visit the problem closely.
>> - much f2f conversation calls ULA an "fd00" and an LL an "fe80".  This
>>  goes very far when assigning addresses on interfaces.  Few if any
>>  assign an "fe81" or an "fc00", although both are correct LL and ULA
>>  respectively.
>>
>> And I think it is so because of the textual representation of IPv6
>> addresses.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>