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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 27 March 2017 21:01 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 8583A129669 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:01:31 -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 M46B4HORj1Jd for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:01:30 -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 AAB07129659 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:01:28 -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 v2RL1QHV017115; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 23:01:26 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A20220BA08; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 23:01:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A58020B94A; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 23:01:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.184] ([132.166.84.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v2RL1JRK011600; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 23:01:24 +0200
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYirty22iGiEjEaYq3_KA1FZhxBTOBWuFOXQ9C-WPd5xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1vJV5O_Ythp6THkAu4-YZXV82Upny1V+ybbjCVZQQX=A@mail.gmail.com> <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>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dfc8570d-fff0-39fe-a53f-db2c81c0ec8f@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:00:58 -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: <CAJE_bqdZezDRti5LqCKnmU9QkwwhdejP22gXwk3wLKiS0mhx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UYc_KLhs1Fco451rHR5ruAdmyUU>
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:01:32 -0000


Le 02/03/2017 à 20:24, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Finally, there is no advice of what bits to put between fe80:: and a
>> 64bit the Interface ID - zeros or ones?  linux says it's a fe80::/64 and
>> IIRC BSD says it's a fe80::/10.  The routing entries based on that can
>> make for interop problems.
>
> I don't know exactly what you mean by "BSD says it's a fe80::/10", but
> BSD variants use a 64-bit IID to configure (e.g) an ethernet interface
> with a link-local address, as specified in RFC4862 and RFC2464.  They
> also only recognize addresses that match fe80::/64 as on-link:
>
> Destination                       Gateway                       Flags      Netif
> fe80::%em0/64                     link#1                        U           em0
>
> On the other hand, BSDs' implementation of the IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL()
> macro only checks the first 10 bits:
>
> #define IN6_IS_ADDR_LINKLOCAL(a)        \
>         (((a)->s6_addr[0] == 0xfe) && (((a)->s6_addr[1] & 0xc0) == 0x80))

Tatuya, masking it that way it means that fe81::/10 is also recognized 
as an LL address prefix, right?  I think it is good, but just checking.

> If you mean this by "fe80::/10", yes, BSDs hardcorde /10 for
> link-local.

That '10' hardcoded is not a problem, because RFC4291 requires it to be 10.

>  But it has nothing to do with the length of IIDs.

I agree.

Alex

>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>