Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Iván Arce <> Wed, 01 March 2017 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1B4129617 for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpZHbewuSaHm for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31BDC129616 for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n186so77828395qkb.3 for <>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:03:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v4LFLRLJ72Gt83Sm3Q/lEV4qMqADUuBbRTvkpbEqd+8=; b=G7IGj+2Rp3kUL625dHX/1x3FDFXMkYZB1ZXGgX+5Mz7iQhPsmfutIhH1kpznLKVFtb 9/emJQJSobPcJcU1muBEGo9TblGAqWWJgiABFsMm+/YoBMkfbRbG/oMazfQOVs0OPpjk 53KLaX8aG83aSJqkqXDMCLJEiHDC3A1I873TA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v4LFLRLJ72Gt83Sm3Q/lEV4qMqADUuBbRTvkpbEqd+8=; b=mmQ/eRs2lOOYWbd+bsm0YJZVhNeoOpNwBxaxXluD7CRqF7OyCbuCljqYP878FbOntq OKl4Dz1JQJ0D1YTonOpGkos8zET7GUrzeoithgitWuFvIj/XATbgKqwqtZB4bM5RJONZ yrF18jAhzx1ooQWhud0vwre5EtSU95x0iCeKyzqgLg3fWw5d7SBoyP+73zpxDRuJcYjP REV5oS6DuOa9kkbAk5NVQgplLRGno+xS5H8dwwaQa94R/UM+QVEJQ516OM0DD5v0Ln78 DPzmQabu3ZGFKy0lR4sRHgSpcQnfsdvMnKNNhQPO2a0pZYnAH3gRluHVVzoRdQ4yAhnJ XzxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l2SzewQyQG1K4QRN0M0K0qmKmN5IzSgpRn5gyFfNUgpe48YJ/0Nks9wzutqJEX5w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id q6mr11763629qkl.52.1488387791686; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id j11sm3495968qta.39.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: 6man WG <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Iv=c3=a1n_Arce?= <>
Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?Fundaci=c3=b3n_Dr._Manuel_Sadosky?=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:03:08 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 Lightning/4.7.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:03:15 -0000

El 1/3/17 a las 6:51, Lorenzo Colitti escribió:

>         Another thing I think we should avoid is to remove the fixed 64
>         barrier and open the door to having this debate again and again,
>         once for every new IPv6-over-foo document and once for every new
>         address configuration protocol (today we have SLAAC and DHCPv6,
>         who knows what we'll have in the future).
>     Which is why it time to get this right and saying it is now and
>     forever 64 isn't right.
> Do you agree that a fixed boundary is useful or not? For 20 years the
> standards have guaranteed that 64 bits of IIDs were available to hosts
> that wanted to use them. If we make that barrier mobile, there will be
> no guarantee in the standards any more. Who should be allowed to set the
> boundary? An IPv6-over-foo document? An address configuration technology
> such as SLAAC? 

The last paragraph of section "2.5.1 Interface identifiers" in 4291 said:

   The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in the
   appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specification, such as "IPv6 over
   Ethernet" [ETHER], and "IPv6 over FDDI" [FDDI].

The corresponding paragraph in rfc4291bis is:

   The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
   specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] or "A Method for Generating
   Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)"[RFC7217].  Specific cases are described in
   appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specifications, such as "IPv6 over
   Ethernet" [RFC2464] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T
   G.9959 Networks" [RFC7428].  The security and privacy considerations
   for IPv6 address generation is described in [RFC7721].

Don't you agree with that?


Iván Arce
Director del Programa STIC
Fundación Dr. Manuel Sadosky
TE: (+54-11) 4328-5164
GPG fingerprint: 4D97 3003 76C9 9DA4 7209  7982 0A1D 10BE CEA9 1B6E