Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - FE80:: means FE80::/9

otroan@employees.org Wed, 08 March 2017 11:18 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 D83AF129556 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:18:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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 LN-CzdASboGK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CF6129504 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2017 11:18:31 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853C2D788B; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:18:31 -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=rRjReI6CXRPjLmq5RPPsICDzjNY=; b= nMM5XybmE70YHljmZK9msIETOL6wGEz/78npJKjPU+Q2IucBHL1DjRHFTHRQO+ZX a4+Zm0r63cWXNGjp5rPFzSlZsm7XnNhHbphKwwGyfWJawWs+Krsacfye59+18SEg B17iTM2AT5bdZ6CaYIS6A3G8xPx5qnCnDuiGn/AFEic=
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=d6WawdsZ8zpTaG6DD3DWdiO 2kFsEhASW3W+CNOOWB2l5m5saOIBCF9wVPoWp4wD21VNUGaVnJ6ZhdDkKW/l2PdI HVXRe1BXc8KwVqsb5oi3Dy7cxObTaPOVIyHP1h2kuTcYFGLUTjS6NmDry+oBDd5s E8t2R6pVhKrAo1dVfy3w=
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 109F5D788A; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211479869539; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:18:29 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <BFD656FE-8613-4D20-9FDA-E0DBEEBB2E54@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EB6787C4-4268-4FAF-999C-184339CE7FC6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - FE80:: means FE80::/9
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:18:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <425ae5ef-5cfe-5787-c6e5-9c73f09cfb20@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfpE-NWwG12S4CXM+ZnHdHHH31-y+_+pYhuCuq2FtqZ4w@mail.gmail.com> <7A10E8D9-02F4-4D1C-B422-86ACCAABCB38@steffann.nl> <1F674D50-1C89-444C-A617-C528951F80EC@steffann.nl> <6f2b4f35-8501-f9d8-e2f6-9e545419fb76@gmail.com> <a11c6b9b-ae5c-7c7d-a71c-cc5d8b80d047@gmail.com> <C689991E-A54D-41FB-BDE6-2BFA74B10049@employees.org> <CAO42Z2xKxe24+d_reyY1rTitA9oPy0=2QSTGSN65t5wFGx51uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yFuuAuEb5=mb8Jwge21nahDhy1uPq-6j7YGnTF9=uM9g@mail.gmail.com> <224F03DD-D876-4288-B48D-04D997ACBE76@employees.org> <CAO42Z2wOCe16Y5u=YNDQ9PRE5dPaEK3kvtFPnZRWOkUfKmZ2xg@mail.gmail.com> <0E14B2F8-4918-4AA0-837F-4D120FAEF17D@employees.org> <425ae5ef-5cfe-5787-c6e5-9c73f09cfb20@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YnMMclaWJ8p5cWGFghqD8xiiw1A>
Cc: 6man WG <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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 11:18:34 -0000

>> Aren't we already far out into the weeds with this discussion?
> 
> The discussion went far indeed.
> 
> If I were to conclude:

You probably shouldn't.

> RFC4291bis should clear the current confusion between FE80::/9, FE80::/10 and FE80::/64.  Keep FE80::/10 only, add statement that is not a /9 (despite its last set bit at position number 9), and remove FE80::/64 throughout.

No. I don't think anyone apart from you have been confused.

> RFC4862 should no longer say "prefix FE80::" because it is confusing. There is more to be fixed there, but separate discussion.

Agree.

> It would be good too if RFC4291bis said in a small place that "FEBF::1 is a Link-local address too".

No. It says the link-local prefix is FE80/10 + zeroes + interface-id.
If you have a 118 bit long IID you can create the above link-local address, but that really does not have to be stated.

> The fact that everybody always says "an FE80 is an LL", or "an LL is an FE80" does not mean FEBF::1 is not an LL too.  And that has deep consequences to address plans.

No it hasn't.

Ole