IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256281A032E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:50:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 rzowo_erWMyw for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920361A032B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id kx10so14684437pab.35 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:50:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pAI0Dce2OjNHKTUli1Dqy0Jdi9pgWA5orreAwVPQVqY=; b=bfkQY/yX1Zb/Qfg/u8oPPZ/AcgH3G2+XbbP+ZtdTskjqR3NelReV+msT7eE5GmdrkM HeBcUYrbGpVXn/Ld6ruhCcaKTRNUrbUMJQdBx3WOyY4JQn3uxp20fG43o79c1jsQ739Y 6qaMhulVqQjI5kzVtYXMIJXIShiwJFh9eW/rOvBIiHieS6j4p/QuW6s6HgB7zMSAvEv2 AzwqQTi9b6r6IGhL1Vxm/HD2IKYCCE2ajOeDnA39CWVkmxHuB2tb6KVJUhhdBt9jXntY SPefcW1GgG4wQWkTKGaRU67MK+n459Dmk5TZi2fIGEKkZy0+84tHUrlmKSeCo6zqoAUe 6Ynw==
X-Received: by 10.66.65.204 with SMTP id z12mr23548043pas.60.1392605411309; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (22.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c7sm40432648pbt.0.2014.02.16.18.50.09 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <530178E1.6010206@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:50:09 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-00.txt
References: <20140124142141.1829.4747.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140124142141.1829.4747.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/my8AnlGdGth9mHfhWJuPOHpVvaE
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Feb 2014 02:50:15 -0000

Hi,

I think this is the right way to close off the EUI-64 debate.
Just a couple of small comments:

>    NOTE: [RFC4291] defines the "Modified EUI-64 format" for Interface
>    identifiers.  Appendix A of [RFC4291] then describes how to transform
>    an IEEE EUI-64 identifier, or an IEEE 802 48-bit MAC address from
>    which an EUI-64 identifier is derived, into an interface identifier
>    in the Modified EUI-64 format.

I suggest adding something like

    [RFC7136] updates RFC 4291 to remove the requirement to use the
    Modified EUI-64 format.

(see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7136#section-5)

>    Nodes SHOULD NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed
>    the underlying hardware address in the Interface Identifier.  Namely,
>    nodes SHOULD NOT generate Interface Identifiers with the schemes
>    specified in [RFC2464], [RFC2467], and [RFC2470].

Is that list complete? In draft-carpenter-6man-why64 we have
quite a list of IPv6-over-foo documents. It would perhaps be
better to s/Namely/In particular/.

Regards
   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email