IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 09 January 2014 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCC01AE084 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 1T9iKsMvWoCn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22a.google.com (mail-pb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9951AE054 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id uo5so2427459pbc.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:58:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R1fuEJGQZwbKn1/95c792F/MFzChH6Rk5w+o8gpDPw0=; b=AeT5p7rhhU302Y4y2YgZy6Gybv1VUBFj1nMmNseWXp/WDVSWhTuk5ZCmabj3+euklV xjD1usm/k+LWzoqCt8EtesOXkIOzIBfaTKI2EYalSQe7XQbFHBF1dU9OL8MTGf1RwNaq cmlSIJCRtPruPg808lcs7vVlFl7gNxv/VSQPuBfp5MDNl4XvASI1J1zW1bRgvy+E4kFd FzsLkMFsdMuyXuqfcEVo7QbbfawYMnzJEVyBvGnDemJI4eWqqtBPg0ulefM1f0zezOY1 aVnz7cvzXEccGEaxdKBTebxY9PzTUQ3/Vdvsq/k2H2Kdb31teJsuNuTKRAFAX9ZmXf6n bEyQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.240.103 with SMTP id vz7mr744328pbc.11.1389236311952; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (81.196.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.196.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qp15sm5895485pbb.2.2014.01.08.18.58.29 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52CE105E.4050102@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:58:38 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
References: <52C9D788.8060606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3-dxJgpKkcG3tqn-34g3rn=T2OiKgO8nYYUh9gB70zMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3-dxJgpKkcG3tqn-34g3rn=T2OiKgO8nYYUh9gB70zMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 02:58:42 -0000

On 09/01/2014 15:43, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> A group of us put this together following a discussion some weeks
>> ago on the v6ops list about the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addresses.
>> Discussion belongs in 6man, please.
>>
> 
> Authors,
> 
> why does the draft say that RFC 4941 says:
> 
> "[RFC4291] specifies that a unicast address is divided into n bits of
> subnet prefix followed by (128-n) bits of interface identifier (IID)"
> 
> but not that it says:
> 
> "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
> 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long".

Actually that (truncated) sentence is obsoleted by draft-ietf-6man-ug which
is in the RFC queue. New version:

   "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long. If derived
    from an IEEE MAC-layer address, they must be constructed in Modified
    EUI-64 format."

But yes, we should mention that. We reviewed a lot of RFCs and there
are probably other things we missed too.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email