Re: 64share v2

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 12 November 2020 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 174003A133D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 dKEP7e7ShgoS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (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 D375B3A133C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id g7so3139287pfc.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N9GiJwrmjhuRAI9ySqReiRzVBP3fWU9za1et/qxlYH0=; b=JxcNwNCMR1+D1vPLc/dyl2kJaMVNX3d2h7j3++CYZ4Av1qdaOCRceifbUlXXORyT9F YWybg26yVyUjUM4Rq9iBoI67Fh18EhIR3JsVSfa9u/bpOvO1yUibGQKq9Rayt+D80zza U/W/Lwba30BzCPck6UraVu4dJOV1q8uHMp/jAC1Zsq7BA0H0532bMit6JlYCHao3nFP4 ffb9YEO0cdpKIXdUjbxZAmUbIVWF4y1/JByxPYtYUhqelVlkuHGQUFmzWeex7dmMni6B W5OL4iuiqP00RjuCuJedywkfXFXTX/unz0xSoJh1ZKCn2sIgyLZjWwC1XP4dBnBHHD4O Rx4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=N9GiJwrmjhuRAI9ySqReiRzVBP3fWU9za1et/qxlYH0=; b=JHdJSYoDNTX/yEg+N6Qh2gOBdaWFarCQXZGacPYIVfi1rcUO3ciNtDTkppiK6ln72I j6mcXCP2nZHmG8M466jI5LoNaAYzvzJNj1Cuif9+nfdBDpGwuc4NBxT0h9F9bngbdB87 pyziCVOVp27cpV/0zwZQo5EtcFtcEhnKt7dYGc8ZgFOrMIK1Ah7LsXwnjOMFwXIRKxxo cnUYiYt2cIMTuW+z+fNRjtYbXccAYvm9lMqFeDt+uT7uGNqg9ULzSeq873hAythLHGZh Hrqe1Aa5iPk9RCohesKqKQT1CMcceEMfh3EasUcrBU3RFgC2SPy149qbaVN7dWSlBh1E S/og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531d5W0eIgEirMtg1uWqEVs/Cs0diHee/Q0q4ERhjM1dw6Row7/Z ZgNrevSeFSGwy/UTHQcdAdlz8IlU+wlnoQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzd2KrZjeQjQMv5BAeOWoCKsEXiccZkxcCfOCNYwkLPwMqSGPki1z13JQjLojo6X0q3L7e+gg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9d81:0:b029:18b:4489:1e59 with SMTP id f1-20020aa79d810000b029018b44891e59mr26056631pfq.62.1605148571903; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm4360036pfk.52.2020.11.11.18.36.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <43ebd660-3df6-bc9c-2ef3-bbfd72a64229@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQRyDDhVtunyCrWDBABG576oi=5xd1Lmz5=QicOJ6YsNA@mail.gmail.com> <d591a034-b629-cf6a-8211-b9243528db79@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQaMCS+T-6pV=c7M_DL=qCYSdqrsemE8vUYYyqm5Rv32A@mail.gmail.com> <9dd54921-372f-f029-41ec-8eb00c12158f@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr05C_rbzigG8H3TbF3NkGg6oj7L4+LVtASdVmpdZ2Aaeg@mail.gmail.com> <15d69b19-9e6f-ff4e-70d7-025af8d33590@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2ReWf5SHKWJL6=zx8kKb92yq0YbUcBiu_kJ-t=e8BDhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a0196c54-cd33-2cc8-45e3-ead6e14ef9da@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 15:36:08 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2ReWf5SHKWJL6=zx8kKb92yq0YbUcBiu_kJ-t=e8BDhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XLz1vXaS5UvO3bo4nQsUw6Ymbbo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 02:36:23 -0000

On 12-Nov-20 14:33, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 5:21 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I disagree. The reality is that 3GPP has already overridden the intention
>     of RFC4861 by misusing an RA/PIO as a prefix delegation mechanism. That's
>     a clever trick, but it is a trick, and Cameron's proposal simply extends
>     that trick a bit.
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. 3GPP used RFC4861 as the IETF asked it to use it - to assign a /64 to the phone because a single /128 was not enough. The phone is free to use as many interface IDs within that /64 as it wants.

I can't find any words in RFC 4861 that describe an RA/PIO as assigning or delegating a prefix. A PIO announces that a prefix is in use on the link, as far as I understand it, and that is very different from assigning or delegating it.

Note, I'm not saying that this usage is harmful within a PDP context, but it is definitely not described by RFC 4861. It is described by RFC6459, but that's Informational.
 
> If you're referring to RFC 7278 (which is an IETF document, not a 3GPP one), then I don't see how that conflicts with the intention of RFC 4861. All interface IDs are still 64 bits. It's conceptually the same as saying that the /64 is actually on the phone's downlink interface, and the phone's uplink interface is unnumbered.

Sure, the sidestep occurs in Cameron's draft that extends the usage to prefixes shorter than /64. Again, I'm not saying that's harmful. But let's not pretend that it's normal usage of RFC 4861 that would work on an Ethernet.

    Brian