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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 14 February 2017 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 EBAC1129624 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 3UNbaraHadj0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (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 8D2E51295A4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B97277 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:27:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o_HEtkaWQXCm for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:27:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f197.google.com (mail-ua0-f197.google.com [209.85.217.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C118D40 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:27:40 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f197.google.com with SMTP id i68so95644247uad.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bnX9VKFjPW63YET6hyeolID+/lH6vsAx1o7TgRKdXoM=; b=VwzJzJsybqXrg9AwsuEjACiN03oaD3wt1yNHPRHCEP67zeL4cEPeyUITkW32w0gO9q aqExRYUnnuKQud4M9oXbLGNAScuuGRctFpIJGkoi5726sZ/YlSFJmZtxWPv4FelpIZO+ scBTwd+pomeJ22KXXYPwQUOjogg71d08gB3gnnYBoetmQvcN4C0N/nVSznT66Qjg6ahs 3XOZnaFzEnEqdXZBhcN/t16OPfBnMd4a7o630cezgFz+IizlgY+GOuoPKzn/GYrI80h3 /yr89xfbpVs3Em5wdmb5DYf11vEgmv0bq8Jp63nCOWYq/Ti6anYbLqT4bkD4c8HRUuRu FL7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bnX9VKFjPW63YET6hyeolID+/lH6vsAx1o7TgRKdXoM=; b=cOhLU4OcFlpyLyFn8TRMlIpKzMvR00G/ovp0FeTRPO0qsbKe5uMSGLhqDYP2WkEt04 Yztg4FcdMi/2C1Qbk+JrgfrVmJJ4EYoZLgjYCxuF3Pxk0q1rrVWVS0IztXi9ifReXmLr VdEiTzojurEuUg0D0CiKACKtYEBQjqR9IkLtGe/lxOXUTtPjrelAUYVes4/R5547clqa rBcdx4lidE3WaacbcPAvzPKiTkRIX38bvGGBjsVmQ7QfodJnQauWaW0mNcy/VsqFu1PG mjzQrBwmNWRpH9bJtYw+33/mCqckg9clIpyPy7gUibokuX4HO+OTnOrWK0YTTOcnZk/p nrPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mTBRAoP3d4uNi2t2kIwlPJ/rHEJ7pilbyXJ7W+44aH6j8viyNIOB40SN62TUikCEsJPxBykYeyyBgH3JlMddbKu7BAzvfVS44DxBoEF0Q1k1o3oZXfdoOEnaH3PRznhcnQYSIlT/1rw6Q=
X-Received: by 10.176.5.134 with SMTP id e6mr15592560uae.108.1487086060173; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.176.5.134 with SMTP id e6mr15592547uae.108.1487086059879; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 07:27:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@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>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:27:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau30OuJ7_57302shrSOs8+sc6iaoDgV27umxb59uwb_pZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c12318c59bbd305487f34b9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/a6RIgQHehF4zIdkWkI8J5TOBp7A>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:27:45 -0000

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 <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; 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 <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>;
> 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
> >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> >> sent to iesg@ietf.org 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
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================