IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Mon, 24 July 2017 20:18 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 9377A131F0C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 hGVNE_CFl2n8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
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 DD46C131F0B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
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 v6OKIbSJ042810; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:38 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v6OKIbXj042802 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:37 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:36 -0700
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; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:18:36 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
CC: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Thread-Topic: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Thread-Index: AQHTBLUzKB8IDmOgm0WjWtwsxbZ3VKJjZK6Q
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:18:36 +0000
Message-ID: <2953666cc36f499199dbbd458fdb43c0@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20150804195752.5065.13523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Bt4hhBvtSVWrLpns4odzek3U5WJkuQoS1NGsPozW0sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3vVREsYc4Y6AAdDpLKsMjwH_2saS7JTn8P6fRDXRKV7Q@mail.gmail.com> <596F63F4.9010501@foobar.org> <fe7a1def-e656-c6d8-5336-ed5595331b74@gmail.com> <ed0fde09ae2a4a598c9a84eb0df659e8@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <69a7f9f2-584e-a2bc-1200-64fad8f9baf7@gmail.com> <652efa7dcb414b7ba6128bb4f93a3d7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfbLzfSYBBuS58CB6EWYkLLoqgGnb==v0CSScfZBFp=HQ@mail.gmail.com> <m1dYUCB-0000F6C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <bf2ab8d8-9070-c53f-90bd-831630021749@gmail.com> <m1dYwTM-0000FzC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <be9f995c-b717-e87b-3ab9-3a1faa35d770@gmail.com> <m1dZZmc-0000CkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4f91c2f03b3a4af2941e4c8ceb29ed25@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau2Odwj+gyEBDXv7ETUhgKpxFH_+dKjvfR6Vc5ZB+-R2Ew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2Odwj+gyEBDXv7ETUhgKpxFH_+dKjvfR6Vc5ZB+-R2Ew@mail.gmail.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/cQjiBNU2j4lp1f4zDTZHYXD8h9E>
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:18:40 -0000

From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer@umn.edu] 

> What? Yes it says they are 64bits, but it is just referencing RFC 3513,
> which is what I would expect it to do, which is the predecessor of RFC 4291.

Agreed. These two RFCs do not differ, in regards to requiring 64 bits, *and* EUI-64 in particular.

> If you think RFC 4291 is really saying SLAAC IIDs are 64 bits then so is
> RFC 3513 and RFC 4193 too.

No, RFC 4291 is agnostic on SLAAC IID length. It refers the reader to whatever IPv6-over-foo RFC, for IID length and formulation. But RFC 4193 (ULA) seems more insistent that it must be 64 bits and EUI-64. After all, as specific as RFC 4193 is on how to create ULA prefixes, there's no other option than 64-bit IIDs, for ULAs.

What I am saying is that 6man seems to have come to an agreement that SLAAC should be restricted to using 64-bit IIDs.

This SLAAC restriction is not directly related to RFCs 2464, 4291, or 4862, because these all mandated EUI-64. Still, we seem to want 64-bit IIDs mandatory for SLAAC. Why? Because we want 64-bit IIDs to be the "default" and "recommended" length, and because we figure that SLAAC will be the most popular way of forming IPv6 addresses.

So, if RFC 4291-bis wants to state as much, that's okay with me.

I think the IID length rules can be considerably simplified, compared with the "exceptions" listed in RFC 4291. Instead of "exceptions" to the 64-bit hard boundary, list the cases where it applies. SLAAC mostly, maybe a mention of Ethernet LLAs (although subject to update of RFC 2464), and ULAs. Just trying to be consistent here.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email