IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 19 July 2017 07:58 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 83A77131C07 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 HL2nzOnCAbQX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x231.google.com (mail-pg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) (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 858BF131532 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 123so26827288pgj.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OZg2nUXfP41/+XQD9emlZyyiChN5OXPEBlLTQ+O3594=; b=QM+Fg/wvuN5DC4aiEAtuFmgInoQHGLNXbov7Kxs5d5Tlr7EqlGaJcMM6Z9qElUDQgC i4036C1nSbZkddvFyFpucA0612Pf0AQq3OY5fOotXe5/Ud+gLkUxb245yiDHwOpf4vJI 5giQOflKC3YRswqheQ3t+eSnjb4ZOGTGwp9ENyvRpMRgNmjr6nGU7SpXIFMr4Gb/s0Eh EtRDcG/5LjYhgkL0CYJWnDh1Dq6DSkkdDF6BZwPKmHpggo9rQCCv36xqyCmMdDHl6jSu IDS2T9DjQmqkMTx3o+IDDTGRFqcWAHmKBJg7JW6GP4x5VTpusy5Zc1NvDd282Kjss1nN DH6Q==
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:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OZg2nUXfP41/+XQD9emlZyyiChN5OXPEBlLTQ+O3594=; b=uC1o4yP6JLCKcZmDkodzbdFuyBjLLeI+IM0p8U+wuog+ojwhvXcudwyMYch6bksOdb kLG5oLPKCsHsrwlPAYp1GkksgX2j1mXz0y2EjWVDe1mIJhyF9SetXaG7HW+AjYR5eKI7 sKcJivZ2NfapdCi1Pwwg+4/EfLdmURCGd4utG6K3fOeDJtMEcHjxNbHZKTAMev1qvUgI NHpJi2LXDFHd6OpPbXbhgtHcclOdrFXYdeJqYxgCY9jfITTd9mEZtRRghVYRi4m6oe3M JRN+JuIcKQ5eALE7J7uwlhA/S+hpwrCn9BrcDkbcV9hZvqae9NyHA23neyU5TLgmdY9E ArLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112e2VSDwTwlPFDTB/q06V0cb7IdPXNVuXCg3CyQczYW1c2/cawK Hfa8DLoKCZ56dwO2
X-Received: by 10.84.129.7 with SMTP id 7mr1853532plb.133.1500451077855; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3dad:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3dad:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s206sm9780857pfs.55.2017.07.19.00.57.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
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> <CD9ED408-9574-4DBC-ADE7-C9D4FD5CB52E@google.com> <88a8e423-535a-d794-6f46-b89daeb21328@gmail.com> <25C70103-5F10-441E-8A1D-D7C7248AC1BB@google.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <1aaa2f1c-45c4-2e27-a85c-1f21a340f099@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:57:58 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25C70103-5F10-441E-8A1D-D7C7248AC1BB@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/gGW1Bw3t3PV40Hs3vI11l8jZHu4>
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:58:01 -0000

On 19/07/2017 18:22, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2017, at 01:15, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. Let's consider a case in which the last-hop route to a given LAN has a prefix of
>> length, say, /80. What is the name of the bit-string from bits 81 through 127 of the
>> host address? If they aren't called the "IID" what are they called?
> 
> If have yet to find where RFC 4291 clearly names the part of an IPv6 address that follows a *routing* prefix apart from a *subnet* prefix. Moreover, the phrase “last-hop route to a given LAN” is not equivalent to the concept of a subnet, and such a routing prefix is not equivalent to a subnet prefix. As RFC 5942 clarifies.

Agreed, but I phrased my question in full knowledge of that. What do we call those trailing
bits of the address? (I was reading the source of the Python 'ipaddress' module yesterday,
and saw a comment about 'host bits', but that seems very 20th century, given that the
IPv6 architecture refers to interfaces.)

   Brian


> 
>>> That RFC 4291 still has this obsolescent concept of an IID that comes from embedding Modified EUI-64 transformations of MAC addresses isn’t actually causing any real problem that I’m seeing stated anywhere. It seems perfectly safe to me to promote to Standard a minor revision of RFC 4291 that retains the existing definition of the IID in the architecture.
>>
>> In what respect does draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09 fail to be such a minor revision?
> 
> None. I think it succeeds. I’m happy with I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09, and I think it should be published with a fresh STD number.
> 
>> I'm unaware of any single place that anyone would need to modify their code
>> if that text was published as an RFC. That's a major part of the criteria for
>> Internet Standard.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email