IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 06 November 2020 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 B6F353A1208 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 06:58:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 LjyhH5tX16AH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 06:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06F4F3A1217 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 06:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.134] (unknown [186.19.8.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2276D2801C4; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 14:58:19 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <160409741426.1448.16934303750885888002@ietfa.amsl.com> <3c1c3ab5-5726-b141-e7ed-618984bbbdb1@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1zoZpZNjb54rEys4+49H3vpebZW2g9JbO1_58eR+WnQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0vvyQnTGRoSh4qa4He1gq5HXXRaKU3pVLtCtDUzcwL_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQPatbg5=OaMzxJXy5mGZai1bqLfg8f+9SUnfg=s1kADg@mail.gmail.com> <e55a9fbf-a93c-a96f-7991-f0c3aad8ce16@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSTQjKQuY1+0DNm5NRgTRkWUQ=eRhnvyKCXvKc3Kvy9TQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3h_Jypxx49-e-PUFvtX0y7DaXf-XvBgK4-oQAjEe8vvA@mail.gmail.com> <23631B74-1870-4F53-9CC1-F884505E61D8@gmail.com> <b9670467-b89b-27b4-4dbc-08c91fc7e74e@cea.fr> <2d4ceb2a759c49b6823e536b31d5e3e0@boeing.com> <4b7359b2ff2f48f79eef4c10c395c8e6@huawei.com> <f11ec469-42c3-b78c-d7f2-869645c5dc64@gont.com.ar> <be125a0f021b4310beb33e9d058f0b42@huawei.com> <88b4d394-4311-4a12-390c-fa4440d00301@si6networks.com> <25af0e7be08d417582a6443fa42b0ba0@huawei.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <5116e1b6-38d4-dded-135c-cc609545cf8d@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 08:57:42 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25af0e7be08d417582a6443fa42b0ba0@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cizTrBmP6ehgkHdhEnyNnpkq3Iw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Nov 2020 14:58:36 -0000

On 6/11/20 08:42, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Address could not be flexible to infinity. It should have maximum. It is /64 now.
> If it would become bigger - some protocols would have the challenge.
> For example, temporary address generation (your rfc4941bis) would not have 64bits anymore for IID. We would need rfc4941_bis_bis

You don't need 64 bits for that. Yes, there are tradeoffs (RFC7421) -- 
so e.g. the fewer bits for the IID, the higher the chances for IID 
collisions.  But there's no substantive difference in that respect for 
anything from /64 to /32.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email