IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 13 January 2017 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 B033B1295B0; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:50:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 vmdWQc2N3Uke; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 8313C1294BC; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cRq4l-0000qE-8F; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:50:39 +0000
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:50:36 +0900
Message-ID: <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
In-Reply-To: <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UPn8inxqH52GN166a0TexrUHBY4>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@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: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:50:41 -0000

> RFC7421 (which is Informational) calls out RFC 6164 (not 6141!) as an exception.
> To be precise it says:
> 
>    The de facto length of almost all IPv6 interface identifiers is
>    therefore 64 bits.  The only documented exception is in [RFC6164],
>    which standardizes 127-bit prefixes for point-to-point links between
>    routers, among other things, to avoid a loop condition known as the
>    ping-pong problem.
> 
> I would suggest adding a similar exception statement in 4291bis.

and then next year we will go through another draft and have another
exception.  just get rid of classful addressing.  we went through this
in the '90s.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email