IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - FE80::/10 and IID length

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 14:23 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 84ECF1296A9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 06:23:59 -0800 (PST)
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 c0VT4Ci2sdkP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 06:23:58 -0800 (PST)
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 4B3D8129637 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 06:23:58 -0800 (PST)
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 v28ENsJu003402; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:23:54 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 217FF206A6E; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:23:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DD6200B51; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:23:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v28ENraC026074; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:23:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - FE80::/10 and IID length
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfpE-NWwG12S4CXM+ZnHdHHH31-y+_+pYhuCuq2FtqZ4w@mail.gmail.com> <7A10E8D9-02F4-4D1C-B422-86ACCAABCB38@steffann.nl> <1F674D50-1C89-444C-A617-C528951F80EC@steffann.nl> <6f2b4f35-8501-f9d8-e2f6-9e545419fb76@gmail.com> <a11c6b9b-ae5c-7c7d-a71c-cc5d8b80d047@gmail.com> <C689991E-A54D-41FB-BDE6-2BFA74B10049@employees.org> <CAO42Z2xKxe24+d_reyY1rTitA9oPy0=2QSTGSN65t5wFGx51uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yFuuAuEb5=mb8Jwge21nahDhy1uPq-6j7YGnTF9=uM9g@mail.gmail.com> <224F03DD-D876-4288-B48D-04D997ACBE76@employees.org> <CAO42Z2wOCe16Y5u=YNDQ9PRE5dPaEK3kvtFPnZRWOkUfKmZ2xg@mail.gmail.com> <0E14B2F8-4918-4AA0-837F-4D120FAEF17D@employees.org> <425ae5ef-5cfe-5787-c6e5-9c73f09cfb20@gmail.com> <BFD656FE-8613-4D20-9FDA-E0DBEEBB2E54@employees.org> <3a1c572e-4730-1071-27b8-57999aecee5c@gmail.com> <BCE166A5-4B14-432B-825F-BA2E837977DB@employees.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f01c049b-9b1a-7ae7-8b63-b625f31ce39a@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:23:54 +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: <BCE166A5-4B14-432B-825F-BA2E837977DB@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UFzNRmQ8LInb6ivdMKoxbijO30Y>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 14:23:59 -0000

Le 08/03/2017 à 12:35, otroan@employees.org a écrit :
>>>> It would be good too if RFC4291bis said in a small place that
>>>> "FEBF::1 is a Link-local address too".
>>>
>>> No. It says the link-local prefix is FE80/10 + zeroes +
>>> interface-id. If you have a 118 bit long IID you can create the
>>> above link-local address, but that really does not have to be
>>> stated.
>>
>> But to let that happen, it should also refrain from picturing or
>> writing that IIDs must be of 64bit length.  If it needs to give
>> examples it should rather use "e.g. /118".
>
> Write an IPv6 over foo document with 118 bit IIDs.

Invitation considered.

> There is a good reason the prefix-length of the link-local address
> space is explicitly specified.

Well, I think there is no such reason.

> If all nodes on a link didn't agree on this value, you would get into
> problems with protocols using the link-local address.

Well, I dont think so.

> E.g. address resolution for the default router,

Well, address resolution: the default router sends NA including its 
source address.  It does not include a plen.

If the Host does not want to wait for the NA it will send an NS; this NS
does not include a plen either.

I dont know where do you see the need to agree on a plen for the LL
addresses?  Can I know?

> or sending packets from DHCP server to host...

Well... it's the same: NS and NA are needed, and these dont use a plen.

Besides, LL addresses are only valid on a link; so there is no need to 
perform some matching in the tables to identify whether should go to rt 
table or to neighbor cache (which would need plen, or otherwise exact 
match).

Alex

>>>> The fact that everybody always says "an FE80 is an LL", or "an
>>>>  LL is an FE80" does not mean FEBF::1 is not an LL too.  And
>>>> that has deep consequences to address plans.
>>>
>>> No it hasn't.
>>
>> Well...
>
> Ole
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email