RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fernando,
I said that "address resolution is not needed". Some simplified protocol is needed anyway.
You have pointed to the manual address collision.
I could additionally say that the router should announce "seed" to obfuscate MAC addresses on this link (the same MAC should look different on different links).
Additionally, RA is needed to centralized push of configuration information.
But it is not "neighbor discovery", it is "link configuration".
Well, it does not make sense to discuss - much smaller things has been rejected on 6man. It is really the revolution that I do believe make sense to push.

But yes, such revolution would need to keep subnet boundary at the exact position (like /64).
Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 6 ноября 2020 г. 12:55
> To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>; IPv6 List
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt
> 
> On 6/11/20 06:27, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > You are discussing here the very big and principal question indeed.
> > IPv6 has been designed with 64bit address space. Other 64bits have been
> abused for L2 address inserted into L3 address.
> > It could potentially has some advantages and disadvantages.
> > Example for potential advantage: Address Resolution Protocol (ND) is not
> needed.
> 
> This is not correct, since the IID has always allowed for manual configuration --
> hence you cannot assume that what's in the IID is the underlying MAC address.  -
> - And, at the time of this writing, your best bet is that it isn't (think RFC7217,
> RFC4941, and manual configuration).
> 
> 
> 
> > Example of potential disadvantage: almost half of L3 address bits are wasted
> (a few bits are needed inside the link).
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily say "wasted"... but yeah, I see what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> > I personally do not see how advantages have been leveraged and
> disadvantages mitigated. Hence, the request to expand address space above
> 64bit looks valid.
> > But the opposite argument that "64bit is enough address space for mankind in
> the next century" is the valid too.
> 
> I don't know what  "expanding the address space" would mean. If the argument
> is "be able to do SLAAC with != 64", then I'd probably agree, though. -- and my
> understanding is that disagreement on this point is why rfc4941bis was stalled.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail] PGP Fingerprint:
> 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
>