IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 9CA16129643 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:05:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bmrtktZR4gIH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DAEA129633 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:05:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j5so37205936pfb.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:05:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ocEJ8K98yGzYRlu2ES6GCJqlIYoMQ3IkmVxCcwh+1N4=; b=L9xf5Xysop5GQthohRFN/5W/wvRjakLEdBr/0PekGEIsoGNsag0H25nqRrIVNoMB2P NbIULqgd/TxaUQ4VhXqVgB9vzSRnsVY8tZwhRwpBd+mWYTVxEqEuKPIX/Moq44eiTL/n g0r6iLUWlX+6URfpyVdvJfXyK+qL10tmwJaBYrhkYrMg+yqGyijA0mvbupEmaXBZSndO BEq6CwoOP1C7ovdgGFNft8+S7DVnVZAi3DQB3qsTv+sDmzfI7tOPdgjHgmzAiQKoffGz dI3neZw09yHIub22UC9KOld6BQPZBw/7bzXgwsXOQVRS0U46609n4Dgjd3bljsFw2mof dyKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ocEJ8K98yGzYRlu2ES6GCJqlIYoMQ3IkmVxCcwh+1N4=; b=EIxE8y+ic99HDQ1TtjYphFIvKAmcO/vMaazNLxdtDg2HhCdK6Ij7q5r80mCyo/+I9n zj2gSzvk/w26zXQj/CJp/cq9l6MkittXLtcVpMQwzMZazG4Gk/LH0dGdYFm/GvB3P5Mr AAQM75OXOdPJOHusXI2uheRYccyQIWw8N4llEECJZiE5AH3ld/vIwiR3wHnJAkxKsuXg Ea2R3kF/4I4zC3n6q4IlKenmeF7qJwhUjO9wYqpa1aMQ4ZPktNx39oT4A0GUvgTMlWMK 1SNh5TsF55zBthVg9sM6Ak7B5oDnUoEMEugq6PiuNAuP3bGTHISGdTNQj00Vhhul+zBO A+lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mLWDHnL9uKE1nxbuT05peNi1Lj2CCCC2KFp6dDyHBpSjbQ9fQnBvDYC8TTaFePpg==
X-Received: by 10.84.228.208 with SMTP id y16mr7335346pli.168.1488578733773; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4e9f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4e9f:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i127sm9149730pfe.15.2017.03.03.14.05.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:05:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: otroan@employees.org
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <851D594B-7E32-4C40-AA89-F95E66FBF35B@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <4a2aa7c0-e344-1635-4f7d-4b9bb696d86e@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 11:05:39 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <851D594B-7E32-4C40-AA89-F95E66FBF35B@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cZV0aFAQmyoUF6E7dCvIjbdu3_Q>
Cc: 6man WG <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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 22:05:35 -0000

On 03/03/2017 20:46, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> 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.
>>
>> Agreed. And I think there are actually two things to say here:
> 
> It is of course not done because of "convenience".
> 
>> 3.1. Any IPv6-over-foo spec must specify a recommended IID length.
> 
> Why? Why and how does data-link layer type influence the recommended IID length?
> It made sense in the past when we created "modified EUI-64"s that were based on the data-link layer address, but why now?

For out-of-the-box interoperability. No other reason that I can see.

   Brian

> 
>> 3.2. In the absence of such a spec, the recommended IID length is 64 bits.
>>
>> Again, that breaks no running code, and it respects the architectural
>> statement that prefix_length + IID_length == 128, and the use of CIDR
>> routing and variable-length subnet masks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email