Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 19, 2017, at 01:15, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hmm. Let's consider a case in which the last-hop route to a given LAN has a prefix of
> length, say, /80. What is the name of the bit-string from bits 81 through 127 of the
> host address? If they aren't called the "IID" what are they called?

If have yet to find where RFC 4291 clearly names the part of an IPv6 address that follows a *routing* prefix apart from a *subnet* prefix. Moreover, the phrase “last-hop route to a given LAN” is not equivalent to the concept of a subnet, and such a routing prefix is not equivalent to a subnet prefix. As RFC 5942 clarifies.

>> That RFC 4291 still has this obsolescent concept of an IID that comes from embedding Modified EUI-64 transformations of MAC addresses isn’t actually causing any real problem that I’m seeing stated anywhere. It seems perfectly safe to me to promote to Standard a minor revision of RFC 4291 that retains the existing definition of the IID in the architecture.
> 
> In what respect does draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09 fail to be such a minor revision?

None. I think it succeeds. I’m happy with I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09, and I think it should be published with a fresh STD number.

> I'm unaware of any single place that anyone would need to modify their code
> if that text was published as an RFC. That's a major part of the criteria for
> Internet Standard.

Agreed.

--james woodyatt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>