Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - onlink|SLAAC and larger than 63bit IIDs
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 17 March 2017 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 DF49A129457 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 07:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 whCgJZDSw14Y for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 07:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 23C9912944D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v2HEw984042571 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:58:09 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 64054209F8B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:58:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C7D209BE8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:58:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v2HEw8JQ015961 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:58:09 +0100
Subject: Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - onlink|SLAAC and larger than 63bit IIDs
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAJE_bqdd9OXOi+SZ8_OfGWXxEoKSfoR6=Lp3-_=vEaWbjx4udw@mail.gmail.com> <018c1f82-cd5c-7d59-f92b-9401ddfb11fb@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfGLngOuGzyTyRFrSOjn1kCkz3RBO0rojFCqqpYWgOZNw@mail.gmail.com> <97e0eff9-9f85-7f55-b3dc-c9b4a4b2bf62@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqexpdnrGfNkj09jv25Ng8J2MsNGVnjczM6ayeZqL2KfTA@mail.gmail.com> <80954d75-d07a-efe5-5906-dba8976dc563@gmail.com> <1ab36b80-ac73-abf2-0b6e-9f7e047d4963@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c220a756-55c3-f905-103e-e9fcb06a8729@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:58:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1ab36b80-ac73-abf2-0b6e-9f7e047d4963@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fgATh0b99BCVwcN4mWya281m628>
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, 17 Mar 2017 14:58:13 -0000
Le 17/03/2017 à 15:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : > On 18/03/2017 03:02, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: >> Le 16/03/2017 à 18:43, 神明達哉 a écrit : [...] >>> But, if you mean that a site using a /48 on-link subnet should >>> advertise that /48 prefix via a routing protocol or something >>> outside of the site, then that's correct. But, to me, that's a >>> totally different topic. >> >> Let me say it is the same topic. >> >> Because at a point in the draft you say: >>> For example, the fact that the length of an on-link prefix can >>> be 48, 80 or other bits is not contradictory to the fact that >>> [RFC4291] states the interface identifiers (and therefore subnet) >>> of a particular set of addresses are 64 bits in length. Only >>> SLAAC subnet prefixes have an indirect implication with the >>> addressing architecture as noted in Section 2. >> >> To stress this agreement, it is possible to write it in >> relationship to 63. >> >> We agreed earlier that what's important for routing is the shortest >> prefix between the onlink and the SLAAC prefix. >> >> The dichotomy onlink|SLAAC could support a recommendation of larger >> than 63bit IIDs _only_ if the onlink prefix were shorter than or >> equal to 63. >> >> Something like: "When the dichotomy onlink|SLAAC is in place [ref], >> and the onlink prefix is shorter than or equal to 63, the Interface >> ID of unicast addresses can be longer than 63; also see >> IPv6-over-foo refs". > > Why would you ever need to write that? *By definition*, (prefix > length) + (IID length) == 128. prefix len + IID len == 128 does not mean a certain part must be 64, and that is good. It does however mean that when IID len is 63 the prefix len must be 65; that is not good because it does not consider "dichotomy" between onlink prefix and SLAAC prefix. > The so-called "dichotomy" doesn't affect this identity at all. The "dichotomy" concept implies that if the IID is 65, the SLAAC prefix must be 63 yet the onlink prefix could be 60. I.e. onlink plen < SLAAC plen && SLAAC plen + IIDlen == 128. Alex > > Brian > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- a draft about on-link and submit prefixes 神明達哉
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes sthaug
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes otroan
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Tim Chown
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes otroan
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Tim Chown
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes otroan
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes sthaug
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes sthaug
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Brian E Carpenter
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Havard Eidnes
- RE: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes 神明達哉
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes james woodyatt
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Michael Richardson
- Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes Michael Richardson
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes 神明達哉
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes 神明達哉
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - o… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - o… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - o… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes 神明達哉
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - o… 神明達哉
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - o… otroan
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - o… Mark Smith
- Re: a draft about on-link and subnet prefixes - t… Alexandre Petrescu