Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@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 DA497129408 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:15:32 -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 9YCYvpMhMzfm for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (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 683D7127076 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id f54so194963512uaa.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:15:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hMt+zSgz3GxmBhNGCrq482Rv1TsKn645G1Ka+dciIFg=; b=kYKF4sJ1qY/KqtS0AXH2m7Ob8A78aqcGia39h5SEtPwuv7JuvpSM0isUIF1En9cwcV gsjcSvMpHjUpcc/o8QfRqoYLddPTTp5QPeysoWwHRhTV1kwskK2vWAvT10yCdYiOiZqF 30eBsAiBLENUtS3pcjVBtPJgM/AELYJHefGgg8AuvHm6Mp0bUK0PuLo8Y7F+cO2te5Yw IhDPYhbvU4PW1uZ0ZO8YhlkCy963MhpvbK6MNC0jQhaPpf8Zt5nJLoT1evavrF8h69UF HyDIsi81sGmrMGNFZeLyFqKMXpvalD+ShjrnjLwcgKemUG71R+eiEdI8I9maYmOiLUeN Eh6Q==
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=hMt+zSgz3GxmBhNGCrq482Rv1TsKn645G1Ka+dciIFg=; b=jutkoJX3PkvY77bBPZsahnQDF/+qUK9vm8dvsLn+XBSKD0MMBrY1AH2wTy4mpsP/xU O+70e/slmBhU05LarccAMFIxnkXg32vgYM8v4bYbNabfLB7Jowu+rvP5DOTaNHPezaAb lNrQu3j6GaVtKDacmFFRJfpedrtSzlXwPwK9dMvJijwqGfFyNskW0NYSox5ZPICPAyy3 PIfTY35dr6wZhWLnoqJG7HnpPI+UtRY2LJVN1nlSqQnTOACH8JKEswpanCc+1YCvbgx8 YNYClL+Stsy60dFmcnN1XecdOf2ITeFBJ0FTnQgf4RxJP4yG6fwB9kF8ghy4KmSpFtF6 4oHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kg6rYl2ih2yrm86UMklyKe/KA3zrav0vVcoBZVB8AhSQzDFXVwFFOHzoq7NgJ4U4KFXXsnQb/mwqvO5+QO
X-Received: by 10.31.11.73 with SMTP id 70mr6454568vkl.83.1488867330304; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:15:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:15:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau20i2fMm52V3yxD0qxfsP4YftrmW+DSyBhfrGQqcnxoOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau3BOVo3UhyGEdxKR-YgqpLqJVxV7uswCCXFsaQoKRaKHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2AEVAo1TCWDLTOzibRBtTtXoWdL2a0ishm_pQ3T4bWAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1tZ6kbnBktUGkycee=vzmfY4ynO1Vd4HzbFWgOUpDp2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau20i2fMm52V3yxD0qxfsP4YftrmW+DSyBhfrGQqcnxoOA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:15:09 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1N9HvEt0Q9ukKbxaYwbaMHk4eyFmZywmtXcry-xOJ3aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11437e88578e37054a1df093
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qI0SKj2kU5MK2bKZhwlRoaRXP50>
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 06:15:33 -0000

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:56 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:

> It is only making explicit that, manual config and DHCPv6 address can be
> associated with subnets of any length, and it's clear that at least some
> implementors think it says that already, and I think your in the minority
> of people that think's it doesn't.
>

If you're talking about the current state of the standards, It doesn't
matter whether I am in the minority or not because the standard is pretty
clear about how things work. The current state is that (for unicast
addresses not starting with 0b000):

   - IIDs are 64 bits in length, because of RFC 4291 §2.5.1
   - Subnet Prefixes are 64 bits in length, because of RFC 4291 §2.5.0
   and 128-64 = 64
   - IIDs are required to be unique in a subnet prefix, because of RFC
   4291 §2.5.1
   - On-link determination is separate from the Subnet Prefix, because of
   RFC 5942 (partly motivated by RFC 4903 §4.2, which the current discussion
   seems to completely ignore)
   - On-link determination is determined by PIOs with L=1, because of RFC
   5942.
   - When L=1 is not specified the on-link prefix length of any given
   address is undefined, and the IAB recommends that implementations treat the
   prefix length as undefined, or treat it as /128.

So, if by "subnet" you mean Subnet Prefix as defined in RFC 4291, then it's
clear that the subnet is 64 bits long. If by "subnet" you mean "on-link
prefix", then a DHCPv6-assigned address is not associated with *any*
on-link prefix length, because on-link prefix lengths are configured
completely separately.

Manual configuration is not specified in the standards so it's not clearly
defined anywhere what the /64 in "2001:db8::1/64" means. We may have
opinions, and observe the behaviour of implementations, but those remain
opinions and observations.