Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 DF7DE129598 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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=google.com
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 CgKKwhvIwQvi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB321294AE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 77so3453606pgc.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:18:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=EXP8vH6Dmpj8M9UIUh6hCGkgfwTYJ+/xuhiCLbnLRkI=; b=gEqMDTRkb5E0rnKxJFMrzpWIOz1CIm8Gy5sKEaEp3nygOHipS5HqGvQSU0M9XCGj3k X6AwrdHnYBvv44CO6eo6VXqvevZFCJZHMKi3GsmgkWuLKZPjh1OwG8ON0dpGRY7quLiN CLas6lBwNAS7I58Mt30AoEPHOl7L74rpgcaeBhK2mW+NAig7vxbiVei8cPaG+NrXsOAp xYum/sFaYiDpAYftlYpApbS+ZYpxDu4xJLHkUHZCnGeHd2ibuET0/WYu0xieGhNF+v09 +xqF7X1DHK8NypeCOMWxfvvkGvYrr78wv2/ELz3iQd7+iRvTP7o5YpYaIjn9v/MzbyEg k+0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=EXP8vH6Dmpj8M9UIUh6hCGkgfwTYJ+/xuhiCLbnLRkI=; b=q+K23b+0WhKm4LvjAkW6jry7n38aYSsFQsEI7QD6Eb0QlfxXQDmqe33/tfP7fdgK8J MEPeP2BinKgcjq1kHFf+GkozE7UTJGuU0CRNnwVPeIAJSs5lpg+zRpm3a+09E5to5FXS Otr6YHJtgYUdZ/OlUXzr/5VTkJy+RD7N0Ay8aDOVksEyuoFYlT1RGYw4aFDgF9n9mLUM /S+PINYLVqnYOXj5V9UXf/acWTEYtBRN2v5i2j3RXUKEIiXFeOdzTJHt5XH+bpddMFK9 sXMQSCrpPD57wdGD8xDdDYseUY07hZLTn/YZPPkEtipc22oOmkhl5F3HS/0KHz1RMppe KBUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kArXHdFjaOnPadPJUwygseicAicjbItMrYcbrOn86jB07xzZAZ+p04ipsaKx8whtQP
X-Received: by 10.84.217.68 with SMTP id e4mr6968725plj.99.1488575921037; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v186sm25249274pgv.44.2017.03.03.13.18.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:18:40 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_72082E09-F3B3-4A83-8389-AAE7C98586F0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:18:39 -0800
In-Reply-To: <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pX5jL9Rue9o_mI1DKBfJfw_X-R4>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 21:18:43 -0000

On Mar 3, 2017, at 12:42, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>; wrote:
> 
> […] Okay, nothing here suggests that 64-bit IIDs should be mandatory. […]

No, but it does say that valid IID lengths are defined for link types by their specification, and that invalid prefix lengths for a given link type MUST be ignored— and not just for stateless auto configuration but *ALSO* for on-link determination.

Shorter james: if IETF will insist that I modify my host IPv6 stack so that, on Wi-Fi links, it will do on-link determination with prefix lengths other than 64 bits, then I want to see that in its own draft and not in the successor to RFC 4291.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>