Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 12 January 2017 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 74BD7128BA2; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:26:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 3un8lIYBLFpl; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 53AF2129439; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cRoku-0000P5-1S; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:26:04 +0000
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:26:00 +0900
Message-ID: <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
In-Reply-To: <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rW9fIavOZL9PwM4Msgz_MEVcM68>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@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: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:26:07 -0000

>> but i am having a hard time reconciling 2.4.4's insistence on a
>> mandatory 64-bit uuid in all unicast global addresses with 2.4.0, rfc
>> 6141, widespread operational practice, ...  clue bat please.
> 
> This was discussed extensively in 6MAN and resulted in RFC7421
> "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing”.  The text in
> rfc4291bis is:
> 
>    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.
>    Background on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in
>    [RFC7421].

thanks for the review that the wg came to this decision in conflict with
operational practice and its own statement in 2.4.0.  i did read the
documents.

since it is incorrect, ietf last call seems to be the time to fix it.

to be clear, i have no problem with iids being 64-bit.  my issue is with
unicast globals being classful in 2.4.4.

randy