Re: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06: RFC4941 and comment on stable addresses

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 23 January 2017 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 D48C61295D2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:51:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PGghRC-XNhhX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96EED1295D1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.102] (142-135-17-190.fibertel.com.ar [190.17.135.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1011A82BFB; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:51:48 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06: RFC4941 and comment on stable addresses
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <2a65f642-e339-8bb1-229a-be589d818635@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr1uFp3mxZ5mVFJHTQYsuT4Q_Bf5953-nEJivhEgp9fwNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <7a46b4c8-9dab-8da5-1d60-eaae0910d2af@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 03:28:47 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1uFp3mxZ5mVFJHTQYsuT4Q_Bf5953-nEJivhEgp9fwNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rEIMd8Z0hZOJl63nnsw-Sj_yb1k>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@tools.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: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:51:55 -0000

On 01/22/2017 08:10 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
> 
>     1) The doc says:
>     "  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]. "
> 
>     While the text is not really incorrect, this one being a bis document to
>     move rfc4291 to full std, referencing RFC4941 as is has two problems:
> 
>       1) It would change the current operating model, where nodes employ
>          stable addresses -- in which temp addresses are *additional*
>          (to stable addresses) and an optional feature
> 
> 
> That text doesn't change anything. RFC4941 specifies that temporary
> addresses are additional to "public" addresses.

This document is a bis document, which is not expected to change
anything, right?

RFC4291 was only about stable addresses. Hence referencing temporary
addresses can be misleading. For instance, RFC4291 does 4291 does not
contain any references to RFC3041.



>       2) Referenced "as is", it would seem that RFC4941 is an alternative
>          to stable addresses, but as already discussed on this list, RFC4941
>          is specified such that temporary addresses are generated in
>          addition to the stable ones.
> 
> The text doesn't imply that at all. It simply says that those are two
> ways of generating IIDs, which they are.

Again, I think that'd be misleading.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492