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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

Actually, in addition to your text there still needs to be a recommendation
for 64 bit IIDs in all other cases.  64 bit IIDs are(and should remain) the
norm for IPv6, I do not want to change that.  But the current language say
IIDs are always 64 bit except when an address begins with binary 000,
leaving no room for any other exception.  And this is plainly incorrect, I
provided two clear exceptions that are already standardized.  Furthermore,
IIDs other than 64 bits are in operational use, with manual configuration
and DHCPv6.

So I'd suggest;

However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
to be 64 bits long, in all other cases it is recommended to
be 64 bits long.

The other option is to enumerate all the exceptions, requiring the document
to be updated every time a new exception is standardized.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> At an earlier stage I suggested restricting the applicability
> of the "However..." sentence to SLAAC [RFC4862]. A short way
> of doing this would be
>
> However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
> Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
> to be 64 bits long.
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> On 14/02/2017 11:32, David Farmer wrote:
> > I have concerns with the following text;
> >
> >    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
> >    128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
> >    on inter-router point-to-point links. However, the Interface ID of
> >    all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
> >    000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
> >    boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
> >
> > The third sentence seems to limit exceptions to 64 bit IIDs to
> exclusively
> > addresses that start with binary vale of 000.  There are at least two
> other
> > exceptions from standards track RFCs, that should be more clear accounted
> > for in this text.  First is [RFC6164] point-to-point links, as mentioned
> in
> > the previous sentence.  I think the clear intent of [RFC6164] is to allow
> > one(1) Bit IIDs for point to point-to-point links using any Global
> Unicast
> > Address, not just those that start with 000.  Second is, [RFC6052], which
> > updates [RFC4921] and seems to allow 32 bit IIDs or /96 prefixes for any
> > Global Unicast Address when used for IPv4/IPv6 translation, referred to
> as
> > ""Network-Specific Prefix" unique to the organization deploying the
> address
> > translators," in section 2.2 of [RFC6052].
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:51 PM, The IESG <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
> >> consider the following document:
> >> - 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
> >>   <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> as Internet Standard
> >>
> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> >> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> >> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >>
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >>
> >>    This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
> >>    Version 6 (IPv6) protocol.  The document includes the IPv6 addressing
> >>    model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6
> >>    unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an
> >>    IPv6 node's required addresses.
> >>
> >>    This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing
> >>    Architecture".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The file can be obtained via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/
> >>
> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/ballot/
> >>
> >>
> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================