Re: why "is /64 [a] "default" prefix length when a length isn't specified."

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 12 July 2021 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 1A5B73A1788 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 06:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 6KNWTSgY_pFG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 06:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 A587A3A1785 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 06:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 16CDSim0007602; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:28:44 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 414B52037F3; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:28:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321612037BF; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:28:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 16CDSivs021879; Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:28:44 +0200
Subject: Re: why "is /64 [a] "default" prefix length when a length isn't specified."
To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <162512790860.6559.14490468072475126698@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BAT0O9nsuhs5FyNjvPfRKY+EM1fLYKaMYTwaPg2QjZAEpA@mail.gmail.com> <61e14cd7-ff37-5380-e547-8a9b6d3993da@gmail.com> <CAFU7BASF-vas+PP2dVNXuqScQArC+joB-fwRGzG3UZnsqq1QJg@mail.gmail.com> <6A22DCF6-5132-44D3-AB45-E9C151376D2C@cisco.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18130164-f3e8-7f81-1c40-9c923ea3897b@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:28:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6A22DCF6-5132-44D3-AB45-E9C151376D2C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mxtqLIzBZu2Vq9FkaAw5z1jsUso>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:28:54 -0000

Tell me, why 64 is a default in the eyes of an impplementer when a 
length isn't specified?

Alex

Le 12/07/2021 à 15:18, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) a écrit :
> For a more complete discussion of on/off-link, please refer to "IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes", RFC 5942.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5942
> 
> - Wes
> 
> On 7/1/21, 6:47 PM, "ipv6 on behalf of Jen Linkova" <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>      On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:05 AM Alexandre Petrescu
>      <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>      > Aside from the conversation above that I agree with,  and aside of the
>      > fact that I agree that RFC 4861 does define the term "off-link" too by
>      > opposing it to a better defined "on-link" term, I must say that I never
>      > used or heard in practice people talking about off-link or on-link
>      > addresses.
> 
>      Well...I guess our experiences vary significantly. I hear those terms
>      a lot and I do use them all the time.
> 
>      > If one wants to talk about off-link or on-link addresses then one talks
>      > about neighbors or not neighbors.
> 
>      Well, strictly speaking, neighbor is a *node* attached to the same
>      link. Being on-link or off-link is a property (of an address, for
>      example).
> 
>      > We around me usually talk casually about link-local addresses (adresses
>      > 'lien', fr.), but we never talk about off-link or on-link addresses.
> 
>      I find the on-link/off-link terms very useful because in my work I
>      have to distinguish between "communication with neighbors" and
>      :communication with the rest of the network, via routers".
>      Terms like "intra-VLAN"/"inter-VLAN" are too topology-specific etc.
> 
>      > Then, there is the use of the term 'on-link' in RFC4861 which is at
>      > times glued to 'prefixes', even though it is formally defined to mean
>      > 'addresses'.
>      > For example, a full expansion of this RFC4861 text:
>      > "These options specify the prefixes that are on-link"
>      > would actually mean
>      > "These options specify the prefixes that are on-link, i.e. addresses
>      > assigned to an interface on a specified link"
>      > which is somehow difficult to understand.
>      >
>      > The most confusing is probably the expansion of this text:
>      > "L              1-bit on-link flag."
>      > which, when expanded, it would mean
>      > "L              1-bit on-link addresses flag"
>      > when it is, in fact, a flag about prefixes in PIOs, and not about
>      > addresses.  These prefixes are often used for other operations than just
>      > forming addresses.  It is thus difficult to grasp.
> 
>      I suggest you look at it from a different angle.
>      "on-link address" is defined as an address that is assigned to an
>      interface on a specified link.
>      There are different ways to indicate that the address is on-link and
>      one of them is "the address is covered by an on-link prefix, e,g, as
>      indicated by the on-link flag in the Prefix Information option".
>      L bit just indicates that addresses covered by the prefix shall be
>      considered on-link. That's it.
> 
>      > This 'on-link' and 'off-link' discussion relates a lot to the
>      > difficulties we have in suggesting at IETF that a new extension is
>      > needed to tell that a prefix advertised on a link might not be for that
>      > link to be used for SLAAC, but for putting in a routing table entry.  A
>      > little bit similar to RFC4191's RIOs.
> 
>      OK, disclaimer: I'm writing this before my first coffee...but...L flag
>      has nothing to do with SLAAC, A flag is used for that.
>      L=1, A=0 would just mean 'addresses on that prefix are on-link but do
>      not use the prefix for auto-configuration'.
> 
>      Smth like:
> 
>      2001:db8:1::/64----node1-------node2
>      If node2 receives a PIO for 2001:db8:1::/64 with L=1, A=0 it would
>      assume that 2001:db8:1::f00, for example, is on-link and would try to
>      resolve its link-layer address using ND.
>      If node1 acts as an ND proxy, it would work.
> 
>      > But when told that the RIO of RFC4191 might be appropriate for the V2V
>      > case that I needed I always reply that what we need is an RIO that is
>      > always outside the link (I dont use the term 'off-link'), and always at
>      > least 2-hops away, never 1-hop away.  SO there I dont use either the
>      > on/off-link terms.
> 
>      Sorry, I've not been following that discussion. Wouldn't "L=1, A=0 +
>      ND proxy" do what you want?
> 
>      --
>      SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> 
>      --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>      ipv6@ietf.org
>      Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>      --------------------------------------------------------------------
>