IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 11:25 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 CF80512711E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 04:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NinAixOTpOKY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BE2D12956D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 04:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.185] (unknown [105.50.131.146]) (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 86A4D832D8; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:25:49 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, 神明達 哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <CAAedzxppjnBhVAHF4L4B7WTtwxPGhpOv8ruXOhm=zGwjQ5-OsA@mail.gmail.com> <780257e6-749e-ad9b-4d7a-08e39f46fd1c@gmail.com> <89A69730-B9F3-49B4-942D-EB664A728BDD@employees.org> <dc950594-cb1a-3c36-4538-3b62f58806ed@gmail.com> <CACWOCC93jbqhw+Pigjx5CdHcAmubcx=nQLbOOtjOb81+u6MQow@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdcR+-6AxODiokcSRhRNb-5gcbRx0xwBqQ8AeOqYd2Daw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau08sssc6WnfYL0+7pvC_R5gAdQZu2bKxTyFWcSm0xFh=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2pxzCb_99UA5aR202OE8hMxc_vSwy5TohzSB2etG-Ftg@mail.gmail.com> <143f152c-1854-9402-4390-37782c6a7c3a@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3uEx3oY2RF6617cYufUMEehjdqXtVf5yf6kD_otVgLEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <3c9f6fca-f356-67c0-5e43-077e039dce86@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:06:08 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3uEx3oY2RF6617cYufUMEehjdqXtVf5yf6kD_otVgLEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ckhVU6lToJLEKNGj_0a61rtZw-w>
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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 11:25:39 -0000

On 06/09/2017 09:36 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>     > However, I think IPv6 implementations that don't support manual
>     > configuration must be able to reject non-64 bit IIDs, since that is the
>     > standard. Saying "SHOULD be 64 bits long" means they "MAY be /81, /99 or
>     > /123", and those are against BCP 204 (RFC 7934).
> 
>     BCP204 talks about multiple addresses. As long as whatever prefix is
>     employed allows for multiple addresses, I don't see how that goes
>     against BCP204.
> 
> 
> That's not true at all. As an example: see if you can build a network
> that uses a /99 and satisfies the recommendations in section 8 or BCP 204.


Could you explain why a 799 wouldn't satisfy bcp204?


-- 
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