Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Iván Arce <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar> Wed, 01 March 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
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 9C91D129412 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fundacionsadosky.org.ar
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 zxMCpTNgQVKa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (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 67AE3129578 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id n127so96835210qkf.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fundacionsadosky.org.ar; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w4Leyv93zkFelbtA4/JbVMXC3O+xPi5FQfyDkHhEAb0=; b=L/YjZVF1JvrawGKsAKY6Ok/Lv8h2X927EdmqWV+8hYzNqVwvP3K8Ja+AocYmaiNdZG Fmy+JqqAqIlVWfhXRyjGC3U7RM8Daf235HbRoS691WQ6RR+ZncBeSpBN/Nsu2+4dCB1s xC2YNq9B4t/bVIdVByhxj//xTCaTYMsddRO1E=
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-transfer-encoding; bh=w4Leyv93zkFelbtA4/JbVMXC3O+xPi5FQfyDkHhEAb0=; b=tKn6/aDRDQ35MTxcCdChbI252iPsF1ivFw8Zp0DZjPuTivlvLI078/yZ0R7bI/ZDId 7isOAaPRfpq/mcDBtdHsqv9hLkc8lGGtISFCz5tG1x9Bt2JPw8fgIZnH0B0R4Ski5wDF l7Pqkdu2Km6XkHWhiHaxpJMEAYk34+78n1kteuqKVac+bhR2ATR7N5V6zRcAE8HXzW0f 54UWi8eewHZGMxHM7w0A7lZNfcmlUlx+r2JMHeWhurMosXH+oyF18m9tyby6BJVFmw17 xbg/pINEtnC9osYnfXc9H/d1M4yctqlSHexndg3yMg4rz018rmV0xOkfkQjudqQcTuqB raGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mY1jhsk8foJA6MoyOBwyPqm7H4x2Uw6BaLZAWNCq3oIMm+LIorTZwv2F1g5kVTDw==
X-Received: by 10.200.34.144 with SMTP id f16mr14068101qta.186.1488409674160; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:07:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.103] ([186.158.218.178]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id f126sm4140640qkc.47.2017.03.01.15.07.52 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <8ce32e32-3f71-81fc-6bf5-763a4d85fed0@fundacionsadosky.org.ar> <0a3446a1-c7d2-a914-25c1-2c4cf11041b7@gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Iv=c3=a1n_Arce?= <iarce@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?Fundaci=c3=b3n_Dr._Manuel_Sadosky?=
Message-ID: <b6432ced-1fe5-7d29-4084-37f7446d29f0@fundacionsadosky.org.ar>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:07:50 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 Lightning/4.7.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0a3446a1-c7d2-a914-25c1-2c4cf11041b7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kJVaXROvrGkZmW49UCsxZvH0CY0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 01 Mar 2017 23:07:57 -0000

El 1/3/17 a las 16:48, Brian E Carpenter escribió:
> On 02/03/2017 06:03, Iván Arce wrote:
>> El 1/3/17 a las 6:51, Lorenzo Colitti escribió:
>>
>>>
>>>         Another thing I think we should avoid is to remove the fixed 64
>>>         barrier and open the door to having this debate again and again,
>>>         once for every new IPv6-over-foo document and once for every new
>>>         address configuration protocol (today we have SLAAC and DHCPv6,
>>>         who knows what we'll have in the future).
>>>
>>>
>>>     Which is why it time to get this right and saying it is now and
>>>     forever 64 isn't right.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree that a fixed boundary is useful or not? For 20 years the
>>> standards have guaranteed that 64 bits of IIDs were available to hosts
>>> that wanted to use them. If we make that barrier mobile, there will be
>>> no guarantee in the standards any more. Who should be allowed to set the
>>> boundary? An IPv6-over-foo document? An address configuration technology
>>> such as SLAAC? 
>>
>> The last paragraph of section "2.5.1 Interface identifiers" in 4291 said:
>>
>>    The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in the
>>    appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specification, such as "IPv6 over
>>    Ethernet" [ETHER], and "IPv6 over FDDI" [FDDI].
>>
>> The corresponding paragraph in rfc4291bis is:
>>
>>    The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
>>    specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
>>    Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] or "A Method for Generating
>>    Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
>>    Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)"[RFC7217].  Specific cases are described in
>>    appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specifications, such as "IPv6 over
>>    Ethernet" [RFC2464] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T
>>    G.9959 Networks" [RFC7428].  The security and privacy considerations
>>    for IPv6 address generation is described in [RFC7721].
>>
>> Don't you agree with that?
> 
> Iván,
> 
> That is the basis for Alexandre's suggestion to simply drop the mention
> of 64 from the architecture: because it's an implementation parameter.
> With my Computer Scientist hat on, I think that's the right thing to do.
> With my Pragmatist hat on, I think stating that /64 is recommended is
> a more practical approach. Stating that it's required is plain wrong.
> 
>     Brian

I agree.

Either not mentioning /64 at all or just saying it is recommended but
leaving the specifics to a "IPv6 over X" specification is better than
bolting a fixed prefix len in the standard.

Incidentally, I think this should have been deprecated in RFC 7136 when
EUI-64 was (sortof) killed.

-ivan





-- 
Iván Arce
Director del Programa STIC
Fundación Dr. Manuel Sadosky
http://www.fundacionsadosky.org.ar
TE: (+54-11) 4328-5164
GPG fingerprint: 4D97 3003 76C9 9DA4 7209  7982 0A1D 10BE CEA9 1B6E