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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 13 February 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 D169A129453 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 qhgo4o9xd0_q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (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 095711299A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AF1B15 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:07:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aR2zlYbgipBJ for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:07:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f69.google.com (mail-vk0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42BE6B46 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:07:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f69.google.com with SMTP id r136so77532558vke.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yOzdeb5J5pMgqaAbmhYBYEEwgQAKxYuCKLUcRUysFS4=; b=mcmTbfetYUCt+ptDEgOT5Xt/ibaKmp+onq/Ai6zq4f5oFjK0R/67zF/3ljwIhdtIW2 V0YOTUJSfiM6PgpP+syHEh7kGG9cPpUQVOua+Ph5v74hDludYwEn0LHCyYLB16BW4+jC DcW0fwJF8K24VxjDfXtLaHqunParB+GrR0dZFLKlj2BULEYlMXgpB8Igli3b4IkHxmyy qmajj6Gu1VW8E4JZIMzWKQxxBs0nLtoDgITBfjHvCOlzbpnDvoflJpbFHkb8UOQNVURr zOemXXJxbQkD7tXRegkQdp2oPp/fQqu9QKXhhrEtsONiR8MsqQPiX8ntFG5I5oOY/BJ8 ssag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yOzdeb5J5pMgqaAbmhYBYEEwgQAKxYuCKLUcRUysFS4=; b=MNgyreDvHACwJOrmlPHLg+Q8dBwSAZLaHyVE1yesJUn9borLu4JKkOMF5kin1mC4e5 8GsXyZMca7ag+gW71tiGpse8iFQYmzCRExbFqPaVqCTbDEg8D5JKM1eS56GJbtACNUQV 5dLTJP+pFsYu32xRmtn7AeU+X+vsu3QSN4mLV8YAKMLm8fJfsZggN59X2awxuslZtQzZ vVH2NlCy/LQuYoVfmaPk73NM/CWyC6Oua+g0BA5WUCp/Q6nZtghcM6KvWuREYSGHlIER lGlS/HoE1m+h2RYvgCHd4M940HIssGhaU3VnEojGFbNrZVDkVYsgnRQHHOvQrVPcDV/u Ixnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39livS5M2ubiMStjLHqWSmKaIX1sQCpQ2rd+iCEK0SyzXwlyM571MgT+VP2yjyC20Iaam3xVFH5l/1w6kKnG6Q+kPMt6aMgJ4vNLhDDjqss18meuTrODZjr6F47KXFSxdyVmRHcKtxfVd6Y=
X-Received: by 10.159.32.38 with SMTP id 35mr13559417uam.12.1487027230712; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.159.32.38 with SMTP id 35mr13559401uam.12.1487027230507; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:07:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:07:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0guXVeskOhF0fPskWhPXF6vFBqmN-u5aKvTkWLFnRXPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04cac2d89a3905487181b8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pFV6W1-ceBEEncZq7MSi7UvZfTY>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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, 13 Feb 2017 23:07:14 -0000

I'll bet it comes as no surprise that I find your suggestion the preferred
solution to the issue I raise.  However, there are a number of other ways
to solve this issue, less acceptable to me than the one you suggest, but
they maybe more acceptable to others.

Thanks.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:

> At an earlier stage I suggested restricting the applicability
> of the "However..." sentence to SLAAC [RFC4862]. A short way
> of doing this would be
>
> However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
> Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
> to be 64 bits long.
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> On 14/02/2017 11:32, David Farmer wrote:
> > I have concerns with the following text;
> >
> >    IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
> >    128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
> >    on inter-router point-to-point links. However, the Interface ID of
> >    all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
> >    000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
> >    boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
> >
> > The third sentence seems to limit exceptions to 64 bit IIDs to
> exclusively
> > addresses that start with binary vale of 000.  There are at least two
> other
> > exceptions from standards track RFCs, that should be more clear accounted
> > for in this text.  First is [RFC6164] point-to-point links, as mentioned
> in
> > the previous sentence.  I think the clear intent of [RFC6164] is to allow
> > one(1) Bit IIDs for point to point-to-point links using any Global
> Unicast
> > Address, not just those that start with 000.  Second is, [RFC6052], which
> > updates [RFC4921] and seems to allow 32 bit IIDs or /96 prefixes for any
> > Global Unicast Address when used for IPv4/IPv6 translation, referred to
> as
> > ""Network-Specific Prefix" unique to the organization deploying the
> address
> > translators," in section 2.2 of [RFC6052].
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:51 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>;
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
> >> consider the following document:
> >> - 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
> >>   <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> as Internet Standard
> >>
> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> >> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >>
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >>
> >>    This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
> >>    Version 6 (IPv6) protocol.  The document includes the IPv6 addressing
> >>    model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6
> >>    unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an
> >>    IPv6 node's required addresses.
> >>
> >>    This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing
> >>    Architecture".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The file can be obtained via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/
> >>
> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/ballot/
> >>
> >>
> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================