Re: Proposal to further clarify prefix length issues in I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis

sthaug@nethelp.no Thu, 09 March 2017 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 4CC2112940D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:25:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 M0eVhEjcJ1Ko for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B451294B8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E63EE6065; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:25:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:25:04 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170309.212504.74699213.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: jhw@google.com
Subject: Re: Proposal to further clarify prefix length issues in I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <60A42A40-994C-4560-BC28-06C365B7A6A0@google.com>
References: <904F4D77-1266-4A05-B0ED-D211E38FFC0F@google.com> <m1cm2pI-0000FsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <60A42A40-994C-4560-BC28-06C365B7A6A0@google.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/axaC_tAUTUy13UN6qhEoo1vXukY>
Cc: 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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:25:09 -0000

> > It doesn't say anything that the concept of interface identifier is only
> > related to stateless address configuration.
> 
> That's because interface identifiers are not just for stateless
> address configuration. They're for all forms of address
> configuration, whether SLAAC, DHCPv6 or manual.

Well, if IIDs are for all forms of address configuration the document
cannot say that IIDs are 64 bit and at the same time reflect reality.
You get to choose one or the other, not both.

Steinar Haug, AS2116