Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 B17C712968C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:10:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 0Lo2LR89F6VF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (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 6D49812968A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 72so52575330uaf.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:10:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wtMn7t65kMJz+eTzLTQKzQOXJvOuHzL1YjxuYmRtEKs=; b=Lk3fgkf6GPTC6gm+7FocIhxcTBC5qKQ2cV9V9RaJukncAmSg/c3dngni47qtHNN/2K 4GBWbsfAe1BdgwZ8PDXsXFK5MDk+eg40dszkh9SG+bDyIj0JC0WTeRLFOYZeLWXXgbD2 uT13YVbU4/aoJ/d5YgyHBaUhYBM3gu9DBf8c1CncH9pznwkA4CUDUqAo75+vjolcZS5Z 9ZcbKqadJ6x7gk7qEBBYQPdyjmGXz0AEISc+5n98Cb1i4lEaaq6Z2Q5r0USihsXjfgvz 8pkLYzxoQ7UMm871N7/1mA4AKGumtHhaBrPV6dvv09Bhu2RuO9H2eaBym1WQXzUWkT3H 7Ckw==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wtMn7t65kMJz+eTzLTQKzQOXJvOuHzL1YjxuYmRtEKs=; b=IQQ3cSx5CxMkwWwF/fv0xfUYg7GNWpqjqpmNZGYrlV2gwm8Mm2JwOlI5mZtMVHbC6+ /40HYxROBYfL8qpTWiutU5P29Xy7V2L8FB3Gw18MLlarVR7DahmoEgn2u2ngmTYEuHKn T8KBLWNg3fG5pkNLpI1mT1YtaWNjNyCU5s1Qlvwo0Q3i0rOB7CwYnK53cUE3VcNx0xwV GEku3e+dCDLOjm+PDcVLq0CIzM7l+IIVGjh0un0+JRaTtjcAbyYSVUSi95l7Nfob4jWK b0eeyypxqzadz5Gfexmun3qpWVQQHaWqAfifjPWzkF3FHxuf0rOR1dWqaQHHLuTuGu2N uzAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mgVk3phfi8UkZaIS2qR/rrIUZzWoVkTMpigrnUo1XIctPLGof30adWIfk/z7keT//QAsDLxTo+B7jGuQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.25.29 with SMTP id v29mr4887551uag.157.1488399036544; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:10:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.38.2 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:10:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0a3446a1-c7d2-a914-25c1-2c4cf11041b7@gmail.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <8ce32e32-3f71-81fc-6bf5-763a4d85fed0@fundacionsadosky.org.ar> <0a3446a1-c7d2-a914-25c1-2c4cf11041b7@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:10:05 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yaybgXr5QGO78Pzt74nrH-G3yqh1h=vD4E9EGHxvVsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/r16nUGj_b2Nk3xERKQpztirOdFc>
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 20:10:39 -0000

On 2 March 2017 at 06:48, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 06:03, Iván Arce wrote:
>> El 1/3/17 a las 6:51, Lorenzo Colitti escribió:
>>
>>>
>>>         Another thing I think we should avoid is to remove the fixed 64
>>>         barrier and open the door to having this debate again and again,
>>>         once for every new IPv6-over-foo document and once for every new
>>>         address configuration protocol (today we have SLAAC and DHCPv6,
>>>         who knows what we'll have in the future).
>>>
>>>
>>>     Which is why it time to get this right and saying it is now and
>>>     forever 64 isn't right.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you agree that a fixed boundary is useful or not? For 20 years the
>>> standards have guaranteed that 64 bits of IIDs were available to hosts
>>> that wanted to use them. If we make that barrier mobile, there will be
>>> no guarantee in the standards any more. Who should be allowed to set the
>>> boundary? An IPv6-over-foo document? An address configuration technology
>>> such as SLAAC?
>>
>> The last paragraph of section "2.5.1 Interface identifiers" in 4291 said:
>>
>>    The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in the
>>    appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specification, such as "IPv6 over
>>    Ethernet" [ETHER], and "IPv6 over FDDI" [FDDI].
>>
>> The corresponding paragraph in rfc4291bis is:
>>
>>    The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in other
>>    specifications, such as "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
>>    Autoconfiguration in IPv6" [RFC4941] or "A Method for Generating
>>    Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
>>    Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)"[RFC7217].  Specific cases are described in
>>    appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specifications, such as "IPv6 over
>>    Ethernet" [RFC2464] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T
>>    G.9959 Networks" [RFC7428].  The security and privacy considerations
>>    for IPv6 address generation is described in [RFC7721].
>>
>> Don't you agree with that?
>
> Iván,
>
> That is the basis for Alexandre's suggestion to simply drop the mention
> of 64 from the architecture: because it's an implementation parameter.
> With my Computer Scientist hat on, I think that's the right thing to do.
> With my Pragmatist hat on, I think stating that /64 is recommended is
> a more practical approach.


"Anything that can be configured can be misconfigured."

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5505.txt


> Stating that it's required is plain wrong.
>
>     Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------