IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 02:14 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 9121312EC3B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:22 -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 fPqsvIlBtFe3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:21 -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 E4B4B126C2F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:20 -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 v6K2EJKj039679; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:19 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.221]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v6K2EDhY039667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:13 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdd::8988:efdd) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:12 -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; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:14:12 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Thread-Topic: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>
Thread-Index: AQHTAJYqd3esQDb6ikC6XZkOC9tAJKJcbGeA//+LAwA=
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:14:11 +0000
Message-ID: <ed0fde09ae2a4a598c9a84eb0df659e8@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20150804195752.5065.13523.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5AB14F48-2799-4A86-830D-E8A89CCADAAC@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0Bt4hhBvtSVWrLpns4odzek3U5WJkuQoS1NGsPozW0sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3vVREsYc4Y6AAdDpLKsMjwH_2saS7JTn8P6fRDXRKV7Q@mail.gmail.com> <596F63F4.9010501@foobar.org> <fe7a1def-e656-c6d8-5336-ed5595331b74@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe7a1def-e656-c6d8-5336-ed5595331b74@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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mxbzx6CJggtVMgRI_700HmfCsmY>
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:14:22 -0000

From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter

> But what is needed is clarity in definitions, which is why
> I've been asking what the low order bits in an IPv6 address
> are called in cases where people claim they are not called an
> IID.
>
> (My answer fwiw is that they are always called an IID, because
> once you're on the final link, those bits serve only to deliver
> the packet to the intended interface, so they must uniquely
> identify that interface.)

That's certainly my answer too. But more to the point, I don't understand what other answer could be valid, or said another way, why ask the question?

RFC 4291 wasn't ambiguous about this, was it?


   |          n bits               |           128-n bits            |
   +-------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   |       subnet prefix           |           interface ID          |
   +-------------------------------+---------------------------------+

That isn't limited to 64 bits? It says:

   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
   constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.

We've been over the broadening of the exceptions in 4291-bis, but even as written, the IID isn't constrained to being just 64 bits.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email