IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Mon, 23 January 2017 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
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 6B1941295BB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 AhCeBgIwfmFU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from greed.fud.no (greed.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:1001:100::145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D12501270B4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:50:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2a02:c0:2:1:1194:17:0:1029] (port=41178 helo=echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com) by greed.fud.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1cVd8F-0008GB-Az; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:49:55 +0100
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:49:54 +0100
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: Re: IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]
Message-ID: <20170123124954.13329c33@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3RpUaNKkyTPHPWWew80cyGkiT1p7vYwfejESP4tQw31A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com> <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr25zNeQGvNJa=WzCjKMd9LaYrSwG=o4tUWn1Zc2ASZjrA@mail.gmail.com> <93700502-5d49-86ce-11b0-ab9904423961@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3wyza0_enWErMhmKKkA1ZOXPv5GG8dMT8HUQZsB5--UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxppi5g_S05-m+B2jKMYePapPM0_wMA4XioYgwipwbKVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau36r2UgXPfdcdEAJ914QqvVvjGJK+=mgE9Y2tpBiDSRig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RpUaNKkyTPHPWWew80cyGkiT1p7vYwfejESP4tQw31A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nUVWnPP7XVtbmaYZvhjRj5Y7bfU>
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 23 Jan 2017 11:50:07 -0000

* Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>

> As explained before, there is no conflict between RFC 4291 and RFC
> 7608. RFC 7608 applies to forwarding, RFC 4291 applies to link
> addressing. I don't see a conflict between RFC 5942 and RFC 4291. Can
> you clarify what you mean?

Isn't there a conflict with RFC 6052, though?

E.g., if you're using an RFC 6052 NSP such as 2001:db8:6052::/96, the
IPv4-translatable representation of an IPv4 subnet such as 192.0.2.0/24
would be 2001:db8:6052::192.0.2.0/120 (2001:db8:6052::c000:200/120) and
nodes in this subnet/link would necessarily have 8 bit long IIDs. Right?

Tore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email