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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 13 January 2017 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 88E0A129591 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 c83QxJxxF7Xj for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 087C4129599 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814E8B51 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:41:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u6vYXW4_lKUo for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:41:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ua0-f199.google.com (mail-ua0-f199.google.com [209.85.217.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFB4B10 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:41:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-ua0-f199.google.com with SMTP id i68so21445557uad.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DrBxsjUKKvdM4bCytvb029AVfcukq9wPun1NBpnvlBM=; b=DxL6SNJ8/+I2baiTISRWEV32fEZVKiYDTb6NkpuLjgJRqfA/Yki/uhkrK9misSSXHS ZSRt6TsiH4tbofNFMC5yqjNq/pnVRqAISzYm+7nBwW+IuE4zAiclGapYATQ9nYS991ah 9Ge6eOONrsiXdMoMQjZnKFk3uwuOHanxY0gnKeAwPPhZu6yj5QmJwy/C4Y4Z/Kcl8mpn NMRgDrfq6xSHchblynam7eMZbWinEg+tFPbkhxKcOhDPIsGzNYHeNaehVvlomctsDG6P TqbGRs7Xvjx/2rZrgJAGNYQefRCGtvW7dNRfOc42blPS8sQUhemTOU6Ls5QE5cc5Yb17 kAPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DrBxsjUKKvdM4bCytvb029AVfcukq9wPun1NBpnvlBM=; b=no0KY7rRYPg6tcJ6w2xe/XpaQFFuzvzuEAAtQrhbC0WNiO46HVig9twypRTDe35PyF ol+qLLn9mVV1kWuksvs/qL1wYXxsKqBp6LtWEFLKnOpHcKlRVygc1DXgiK5EAETOWoAN SLFJZ0eOQvvx8+2GZtpux9MXEqH2AbGlT7P1SktXrIl7xxTX+YlCd992LDY1pFwSNgom rZ6M40nbIkEM2t0Katifud0pzQtXJHnKOibjmQb3BoEnmuynvUX466jleBz5LfN0W8CU Ys1+AzsTC0KVcmQxHAuHreP9eHQLGPWBIi8wEwwbmsCGa+Wu4z2QOgq/Ff1YGbFO6REm GM7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLzhc3rYVYNfAwaxLdP6FfCyub0UGmVM/u6bJhJQhBo+kamw29oNyMr1PxR4jGbpDeXgzDD67SaGAKS1WJHhz9/kgr2X9jgYPj0IwgU/dkzYN1tAyCTzCkrYQ5z+pjquh1F67wjdt22/6c=
X-Received: by 10.31.49.216 with SMTP id x207mr8272015vkx.82.1484268083740; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.49.216 with SMTP id x207mr8272004vkx.82.1484268083510; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:41:23 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0Z6aYhitOw8oJ_JQo9N_hzK6yzMe3VosZ7Ch6iV_uaxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114409b2de9ec50545ef17cb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lW3iCYEVNIQa1tvrkfd-hAk2KS8>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:41:27 -0000

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> 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:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================