IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sat, 10 June 2017 23:23 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 9FA8212946B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=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 ZusKGgR-hp38 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (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 3E934129468 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47055AE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:23:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EV5IXdb2UjTs for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:23:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-it0-f70.google.com (mail-it0-f70.google.com [209.85.214.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9397C9B0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:23:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-it0-f70.google.com with SMTP id x129so10733137ite.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KLoozvI8RNgYEtEMrJV/B/lz8PvlE2QGuLN9s61LstY=; b=JlRmTTMYhw9BDwnnMdSIUQUr2xWF1YXezTm2+XCyc2JogYa1Y6Lr5KGuioNiC4SETm 9QGIsEvn4CjQldYc25NiP2V3AWAjG2OVsQzD3ddvIuEY0qpgyAtQ4ROnAICzKfGIqATs HtXfHDf1zhbQ8fV9tdWXW9XooEwjFcTc4LSaEF/FIhPLnwhfUmZMiYxcXSqpwse+Z4pk Q6x+lKMyw1K7SA3EVyrVOc3S7sJysALGk378y1J05a/KJxJ64xxnEYtkm6wTXMLtxJZB WV1KjrncjMT/BQMc533BISKMZClDUkjf4XbxRyodPgCSNHxJbkKIwPnHw+ixoAKdCFRj Ke4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KLoozvI8RNgYEtEMrJV/B/lz8PvlE2QGuLN9s61LstY=; b=Ba7UUa5L+cDtlLMn9bs3PtAsO11oYGTKPWWV/wjB6FXyiYKztf9JW1+RW4/nR2reTL 10uSAjWdIyIBT0lG3sLVO7IUTlFeGjKoH4LOX9n7+pxr4UcCDjOLaJxwY4MwG2rsh1iW PlRd6T1UdIYPyYM2uogcPUyBKVWDmh7YJm6SKlZjNaa+Eo8vT2BNjbCYM6OgfYRZ9+pe h7WVJ+ZYDtZqaY8tQfFYgngp0tngO8n9B9Rf+flKgG7RSr38cadii8eLD0ThsA1BoO2H lYO6aQx+HhPUOVz8FkjPHNkDL8Jl0HvSM+trffWi1hcMU99+6lzh/xiZ6p6SL31HiVUx ZvIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAfqO0aBcA7CLAX0RWOkOuYgxUToDZbPhu2PYdOFqVNkPswTyHx XGnn7RTkwI7/NnIbCJhvMC3yAsn7jpC77ygDHRLzIGijJgZsbi927S+NVj7h2PDdvGry4zaRopA =
X-Received: by 10.107.10.84 with SMTP id u81mr37495245ioi.206.1497137020726; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.107.10.84 with SMTP id u81mr37495241ioi.206.1497137020544; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.83.67.6] (mobile-166-175-58-7.mycingular.net. [166.175.58.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 197sm1954335ity.5.2017.06.10.16.23.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <20170610.231524.41691706.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:23:36 -0500
Cc: otroan@employees.org, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <954FD01E-135B-45DA-875A-3B1F1724D5C7@umn.edu>
References: <CAKD1Yr3SUOPd+5H66WPc2ikxauVWVG2ZBjFTHoFOQPCEYTBdiA@mail.gmail.com> <4B891D4C-96E7-42F4-9A38-EBA7B3466BE0@employees.org> <CAN-Dau38xD0oZ-0xe3K=VYgwAU25z6ySp7BgMj8HQ2iG96AoRA@mail.gmail.com> <20170610.231524.41691706.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aHetsxnbcXeeOktkA2k1W3_RPoU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:23:44 -0000

> On Jun 10, 2017, at 16:15, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>> So, I think if we stop using subnet prefix vocabulary with IPv6, we might
>> find consensus and resolve this conflict.
> 
> That may well work for the people on this list. Unfortunately, I'm not
> optimistic about ACME Company's Joe network manager understanding it.

That is why I suggest noting that the classic IPv4 subnet prefix is most similar to the IPv6 on-link prefix, which both can be of any length, and both are directly related to routing, by determining what is locally reachable.

Where as the IID length is a parameter defined as 64 bits and is related to (automatic) addressing and is actually only tangentially related to routing. 

So, I think we have been arguing about whether the equivalent of the IPv4 subnet prefix for IPv6 is fixed at /64 or not, and by tying the term subnet prefix to the definition of IID in RFC4291 and its predecessors we created an unnecessary conflict. Because the purpose of the IPv4 subnet prefix is more closely related to the IPv6 on-link prefix not the IID.

Thanks

David Farmer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email