RE: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:23 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
> 
> Le 06/01/2014 17:07, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> > Hello Brian and co-authors,
> >
> > The draft looks good to me. In Section 3, paragraph 3, please
> > add ISATAP [RFC5214] and AERO [I-D.templin-aerolink] to the
> > list of "IPv6-over-foo" documents.
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> Yes, IID of ISATAP RFC5214 reads as fixed 64bit long, and should be cited.
> 
> However, I am not sure ISATAP would apply to be an 'IPv6-over-foo'

ISATAP specifies the formation of IPv6 interface identifiers and the
operation of IPv6 neighbor discovery over a link type that supports
the transmission of IPv6 packets, so it fits the description of IPv6
over (foo).

> document.  Rather a v4-v6 transition mechanism?

Some sites that deploy ISATAP may find the service acceptable to the
point that they never have to take it down and move onto native IPv6.
I think that's part of the reason why there is so much teeth-gnashing
among the haters who have pushed back on ISATAP over the years.

> If yes we have this
> text that could  be augmented with ISATAP reference:
> >    IPv6 transition mechanisms such as NAT64 and NPTv6, as well as Basic
> >    transition and Teredo rely on the use of IIDs of length 64.
> 
> On another hand,  draft-templin-aerolink-00.txt seems to be an
> IPv6-over-foo document.  I need to read this part more to better
> understand the suggestion. I will come back.

OK - thanks.

Fred
[e-mail]

> Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 2:07 PM
> >> To: 6man
> >> Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt]
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> A group of us put this together following a discussion some weeks
> >> ago on the v6ops list about the 64-bit boundary in IPv6 addresses.
> >> Discussion belongs in 6man, please.
> >>
> >> This draft is incomplete but we'd welcome input. Let me underline
> >> an important comment in the introduction:
> >>
> >>    _The purpose of this document is to analyse the issues around this
> >>     question.  We make no proposal for change, but we do analyse the
> >>     possible effects of a change._
> >>
> >>
> >>     Brian + co-authors
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt
> >> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 13:59:17 -0800
> >> From: [e-mail]
> >> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >>
> >>
> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> >>
> >>
> >>          Title           : Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
> >>          Authors         : Brian Carpenter
> >>                            Tim Chown
> >>                            Fernando Gont
> >>                            Sheng Jiang
> >>                            Alexandru Petrescu
> >>                            Andrew Yourtchenko
> >> 	Filename        : draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00.txt
> >> 	Pages           : 14
> >> 	Date            : 2014-01-05
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>     The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the
> >>     prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier
> >>     used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet.
> >>     Historically the interface identifier has been defined as 64 bits
> >>     long, leaving 64 bits for the prefix.  This document discusses the
> >>     reasons for this fixed boundary and the issues involved in treating
> >>     it as a variable boundary.
> >>
> >>
> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-why64/
> >>
> >> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-why64-00
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------