IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Tue, 06 June 2017 23:06 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 2ACC41273E2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Lj7bIAHa18MJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (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 2CC97126B71 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 83so45102935pfr.0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=2ac5iCWEMLNIl5ZV5Yq5hnAAUqPvWOEAVvxg3lQFGog=; b=vRPKlHJL1vZhan5MP907DJrOyCypppHFIkmBnc0hhOzYmNrJ0+y8XxKCUpG5dBsPQY o5gqlhCtACeuuldsBCPPq7AadPqnVpoviUQs5zWJuZCoVZh23xsBv/vKYTpMB13IPKMb 19Q1vRsfGBDyUqeOrSdWdPXbMQioT3mUCKbNK3RC8ICPFZ+l72nCvKvbyDq0xzb196cA ppPyS7hbufnT+Jd6/4e9oLIzChyFaLBBRo3y2CQEhWCFt8giFxaptPW+M3RnyNyNOLze 1bkeY9BO7HkOMTe0seTYU1e/F2wswDns5lQcPynO0cerMWiFYt6HYTOmseIDqYWNidnz aMOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=2ac5iCWEMLNIl5ZV5Yq5hnAAUqPvWOEAVvxg3lQFGog=; b=nUWyudtDqv1+lndQJFHaw8+c0uxfDzhnDN+A+mzg26i6jVBO2jGbCniVxWqykU6e0F YAwkwnT8jTWveyDto7KVsaLtA+jnXWqL17Z/eXmJF8Dl6o9HyqEKybQLGCYDUI3uwB2O kNPwb8ORtFnSvNE3rVA5aanRKaVL9M5zMUndmP/5iM9BvkgN+sBAbsuauijjrKd6Q83x 4uVH+tT/T9dPTnS++ALB52+Wrk/fFjS9hXi7ejQ/3mxf/flRWcxePOSTx+ZHMOakYFe/ PTC6FWmIrjenMstdQw4syhDyeKkdg30/Tpcp1rA0vEQg5ZpTzsFGHPgkkugYoiM680mz U+Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAkdQBUNhvYN3+ME1IK/SIuFfSbCzYPsJkgrO3gJUBbuDz038Xy TPnYEpRRTQyfTGdCFgx7+Q==
X-Received: by 10.98.145.26 with SMTP id l26mr28225998pfe.36.1496790402231; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::10e7:10:e8f1:52b3:561c:ee65? ([2620:0:10e7:10:e8f1:52b3:561c:ee65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k11sm23700089pfj.48.2017.06.06.16.06.41 for <6man@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:06:40 -0700
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <CAJE_bqfuTbEm-8Uy5a+n85LCf7-pVGck8ccapGaCEqy1EpCFNQ@mail.gmail.com> <bd62fecf-a1c7-1623-a9dd-ec8bc3ff5a5a@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfoVXbt3N8LG0_QXn4BBpBpJQ5SFo=nw0g1Or6dxcRmeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6man@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqfoVXbt3N8LG0_QXn4BBpBpJQ5SFo=nw0g1Or6dxcRmeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <F29B67DA-EFEB-41E8-AC15-A56F359CCE81@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pq-TzYBAEj-5Tu9mfUKbVysM6ts>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 23:06:45 -0000

On Jun 6, 2017, at 14:49, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
> With this extended definition, the question is whether "on-link
> prefix" is distinct from "subnet prefix" only when SLAAC is in use.
> Admittedly I don't think an existing standard document answers this
> question. […]

I would say that IPv6 Subnet Model [RFC5942] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5942> clearly answers this question.

The answer is no: they are always distinct. See §1 Introduction, where it says, "The behavior of IPv6 as specified in Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861] is quite different. The on-link determination is separate from the address assignment," and further refinement in §4 Host Rules, p1. where it says this: "The assignment of an IPv6 address -- whether through IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862], DHCPv6 [RFC3315], or manual configuration -- MUST NOT implicitly cause a prefix derived from that address to be treated as on-link and added to the Prefix List."

> […] But IMO the answer is still "no".  That's simply because the concept of "on-link" prefix is independent from how an address is configured at all, as explained two paragraphs above.

I think it’s not just a matter of opinion. I think the standards track documents are clear on this point.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email