Re: <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> update to rfc2464bis

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,

Thanks for the comments.  

Inline.

Bob


> On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:59 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Bob,
> 
> I agree with your view. Some further comments below:
> 
> On 01/09/2017 05:40 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Based on update from draft-ietf-6man-default-iids (currently in RFC
>> Editor queue) I changed the first two paragraphs of Section 4 of
>> <draft-hinden-6man-rfc2464bis-01> to:
>> 
>> 4.  Stateless Autoconfiguration
>> 
>> The default approach to create stable Interface Identifiers 
>> [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] for use with SLAAC on an Ethernet 
>> interface should be based on [RFC7217].
> 
> maybe s/should be based on/is spaciefied in/ ?

I used “should” because on it comes from draft-ietf-6man-default-iids, that is:

     Nodes SHOULD implement and employ [RFC7217] as the default scheme for
     generating stable IPv6 addresses with SLAAC.

so I think the “should” is important.


> 
> 
> 
>> It is not recommended that Interface Identifiers for an Ethernet 
>> interface be based on IEEE MAC-layer addresses.
> 
> Maybe s/It is not recommended/Nodes should not/ ?

Likewise, draft-ietf-6man-default-iids uses the recommend language.  This is,

   By default, nodes SHOULD NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes
   that embed a stable link-layer address in the IID.  In particular,
   this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs with
   the schemes specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], [RFC2470], [RFC2491],
   [RFC2492], [RFC2497], [RFC2590], [RFC3146], [RFC3572], [RFC4338],
   [RFC4391], [RFC5121], and [RFC5072].


> 
> Maybe a reference to default-iids could be useful here (in addition to
> the text).

Let me think about that a bit.

> 
> 
>> Earlier versions of 
>> this document described a method of forming interface identifiers 
>> derived from IEEE MAC-layer addresses called Modified EUI-64 format. 
>> This is described in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis] and is 
>> no longer recommended.
>> 
>> Instead of having it pointing to <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids>, the
>> new text points to RFC7271.  I thought this was better as Section 3
>> of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> says the RFC2464 should now follow
>> RFC7271 (including should use RFC7217 and should not use stable
>> link-layer address).  Avoids a extra hope so to speak.
> 
> Agreed.

Good, thanks.

> 
> 
>> I think the intent of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids> is captured in
>> the text in the new -01 version.
>> 
>> Comments?
> 
> Looks fine, but please check the small suggestions above.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>