RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Sat, 04 March 2017 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 277F61293E4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:53:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 WO5xiTaQ5DCD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (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 DCD9D12706D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:53:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v240rUkr042077; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 17:53:30 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.222]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v240rN7d042061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 Mar 2017 17:53:23 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:53:23 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 16:53:23 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Subject: RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Topic: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHSlHgYBO+OWub53keQ56BZKFhxHqGD1tWQ
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 00:53:23 +0000
Message-ID: <59a0bc68e13643c48476c4ce4f75e59c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/WSmcKszwOkL9FasaN6pfVMAO88Y>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <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: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:53:32 -0000

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt

> I’m saying that my stack tries to comply with RFC 4862 which
> requires that it ignore PIO options where the Prefix Length is
> not 64 on link types that define the length of the IID as 64 bits
> in the relevant IPv6-over-link document.

That's 64-bit IIDs for SLAAC and link-local. According to RFC 2464. Not a constant for all IIDs, as I read it (used in present and past tense).

> If you send me a Prefix Length other than 64 bits, then I’m gonna
> ignore it. Just as RFC 4862 commands.

For SLAAC.

> It’s technically true that *if* my stack did not implement SLAAC, then
> it would have no need to comply with RFC 4862, and it could therefore
> accept Prefix Length other than 64 bits on Ethernet (and Wi-Fi) link
> types,

To me, this could be a problem. Even on Ethernet, it should accept other than /64 prefixes. If I'm assigned a /64, or a /60, or whatever, and I determine to be inadequate, I should be able to use RA and DHCPv6, behind my edge router, to create any number of subnets. RFC 4291 bis needs to accept this as legitimate, because other RFCs already do.

And, more importantly, RFC 4862 itself leaves the door opened for a revised implementation of SLAAC, allowing even SLAAC to be used in such a subnetted case.

Bert