Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> but i am having a hard time reconciling 2.4.4's insistence on a
> >> mandatory 64-bit uuid in all unicast global addresses with 2.4.0, rfc
> >> 6141, widespread operational practice, ...  clue bat please.
> >
> > This was discussed extensively in 6MAN and resulted in RFC7421
> > "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing”.  The text in
> > rfc4291bis is:
> >
> >    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
> >    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.
> >    Background on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in
> >    [RFC7421].
>
> thanks for the review that the wg came to this decision in conflict with
> operational practice and its own statement in 2.4.0.  i did read the
> documents.
>
> since it is incorrect, ietf last call seems to be the time to fix it.
>
> to be clear, i have no problem with iids being 64-bit.  my issue is with
> unicast globals being classful in 2.4.4.
>
> randy
>
>
Randy I take your point, but this supposed conflict isn't new, it's not
introduced in 4291bis, it goes back to RFC3513.  Do you have a suggestion
how to change this within the context of advancing this to Internet
Standard?

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================