IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Tue, 11 July 2017 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
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 9F68C129B07 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dUj89_CM0MgM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 10AD0124234 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v6BHKwYh050851; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:20:59 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v6BHKmsH050287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:20:48 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:20:47 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:20:47 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
Thread-Topic: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
Thread-Index: AQHS+SDP3OTJu1pEb0ubfyaiRp6wkqJNwW2AgAAMmoCAAFh6gP//l4BAgADKDwCAAFSoEA==
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:20:47 +0000
Message-ID: <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mpdbyAoGVmPNEXMw1q1AfrudZtY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:21:02 -0000

From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer@umn.edu] 

> IPv6 as currently defined does actually require IIDs to be 64 bits,
> if this wasn't the case then you could use subnets of any length
> without any special requirements or considerations.

And in general, you can. I think this is a stumbling block. There are examples where 64-bit IIDs are still required, and there are examples where they were required for reasons that no longer apply. But as of now, if you use static addresses, or similarly DHCPv6, you're not limited. Everything works fine with shorter IIDs. If you use SLAAC, you are limited to 64-bit IIDs, but that limitation is self-imposed, to try to keep other-than-64-bit-IIDs from becoming too easy to configure. In principle, it would be easy enough to remove that 64-bit limitation from SLAAC.

I'm opposed to continue to imply that 64-bit IIDs are "required," other than in cases like SLAAC, ULAs, LLAs. That word "required" is what causes the pushback.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email