Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Thu, 16 February 2017 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 D88B21296B1; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 Tmt7XuhegOCv; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F0A1296A4; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2017 21:24:55 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3113BD788B; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:24:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=57220XjCG3ryLCZNkzd4NG7G63k=; b= DjEQOjo9Zwq8hdSy4dVCl7ulRqkGKs7Lovaollw5LZwZA+84Sk+2DfSD6zy8c41+ PW2+kHerjVppIBlSr8rmN50rYUth18PiExu+BUk7K8XTwu/iZn4TIWKQqqtdpPRi TB4jzZwhkb+mqxS1XB/DK4a5JSJSUg3rYI734rTvyfs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=JivpXA1ykGRAHoQ1zVDm4C+ 1HzYRBI8AkDc6zG63lkC0PrdfDBoeOtFV+mbx25vnBOUqey9c4QCN2D2o6yL4ac4 hP2/1U2q+ZWnoLRqSuZUyCDsFoPz2QNt9X9GhkUmdEjtLTizJqcv7wF7SFjaMcbb RnGAaEGwJ5bTnYbfM8k0=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B040CD788A; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE68A8BE0D6B; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:25:07 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <660929B4-158B-453F-9B5F-6C029F9699FA@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_23943D9E-475B-479C-864D-8EF10855354C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:25:06 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <m2y3x6eutl.wl-randy@psg.com> <B76B6864-5827-4AC1-9BF7-8FFF069C10F1@employees.org> <m2lgt6ed7j.wl-randy@psg.com> <4514E052-25C1-4C85-AB1D-0B53FD9DA0E1@employees.org> <CAN-Dau3VriYNUf96yZEFMMV+-4WCxBz94Lkqfg3OsCUAbVYhaw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nfF5-oNo52C1kp3oEX7fllWOeEA>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:24:58 -0000

David,

[...]

> How do we move forward? What I think we need is to make it clear that there are real exceptions to 64, and it is therefore not acceptable to embed 64 in code.  The historic exception of addresses that start with 000 has been too amorphous, no one thinks it real. I've provided two exception that are clearly based on current standards track work, but I fear that still isn't enough.  I fear some will still embed 64 and just add code for the exceptions, if it's even really needed.
> 
> Can you help me find something a little more?

I have run out of ideas. :-)

The challenge is to find text that enforces the 64-bit boundary policy (ignoring the technical arguments for a moment), and at the same time ensures implementors do the right thing and make their code handle any prefix length. Of course these are interdependent and doing the latter makes it harder to enforce the first.

> What about an additional exception for manual configuration?

It's an architecture document. It should draw the big lines.
I don't think it should list exceptions, perhaps not even the 6164 one.

Learn to live with it?

(And I promise not to mention host-routes aka addresses with a /128 and interface-id length of 0.) :-)

Best regards,
Ole