Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Wed, 15 February 2017 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 8551F128AC9; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:31:07 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 ndS1-S5W9u6R; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:31:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B28112947A; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2017 09:31:04 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82295D788D; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:31:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=SwXvuwgeeybb7r8dO9ydnUicQcU=; b= F7KwG7osoNE/27LZY/pWQLykaOV05TQeTOYb5NvWVDzbURvQn2oSPA9T0EcMBUzo zaIyZbfEa2rrLobmAwe7mErizvhBSDZB+GSBrCY47ybaQ5d1yKwMFEFkDy/bdQl6 53PraPaUx2chPvmPLjGfpb0VWGVrvToC74Ki7g5FNt0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=i1bafG5n+dmbKKlAX7V9A8j Az4cKcp5hofUexPNNA0RN5OiGxd3YKPoPDAKJcWC5gjpqAJMflkWL/d+6ZNfZfKC EQ7exaGmaQnrMeXmvsdDP2SaTvjetLRQVMmVArTAehjpwVUCx3wFZKzsuKlPiuBu a5TIviTOQLadUVqZMoCc=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 563FED788B; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901CA8AF7EE8; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:31:13 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1A0B9780-2FA9-4801-BEC1-37239C67092D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:31:12 +0100
In-Reply-To: <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/X0V2Kdc0oxGfjtD8I7eyB497Hm4>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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, 15 Feb 2017 09:31:07 -0000

Brian,

>>> Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would
>>> claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard.
>>> 
>> 
>> Agreed.
> 
> Of course. The point is only that it's a parameter in the design of SLAAC,
> whose value is set by the address architecture.

If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of SLAAC I believe you are wrong.
Can you provide any support for that view?

If I understand you correctly, your proposal is to change the fixed 64 bit Interface-ID length in IPv6 to a variable one, with an exception for links where SLAAC is used.

How do you practically suggest to do this, given the issues raised in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421#section-4.1 ?

Do you think this change is appropriate in the context of advancing 4291?

Do you have implementation reports and are there not interoperability problems here?

Best regards,
Ole