RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
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 8ECCA129667 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:34:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 y1Pf_OrLj1Td for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 71B1312940D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v230YK0d026404; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:34:20 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v230YGE0026396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:34:16 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:34:16 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 16:34:16 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Topic: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHSk6aBc0GC3/s6VkejKSh9uOtZ66GCOwMggAAG9SA=
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 00:34:15 +0000
Message-ID: <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cEvqcxJQeWCUcQIrz0DcHxUqh1E>
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:34:22 -0000

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Farmer

> 3. IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits

I think that RFC 4291 bis should not retain a constraint that has been applied so far, out of convenience, in the earliest stages of IPv6 deployment. Somehow the idea of forced 64-bit IIDs has crept into the culture, even while it is being violated by some devices, routers primarily.

To be pragmatic about these things, given that OSs seem to break if IIDs of other lengths are attempted, my suggestion is to limit the damage to *current use* of the 2000::/3 unicast address space. Not to extend it to all of IPv6.

Bert