IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 02 September 2013 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 3CDD211E8147 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SsrqJF49j7-H for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3F611E8146 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id g10so5092673pdj.2 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qiBhPPCj2WATYg4J0cghZt9i5nvVo5hqlVe8LDT4aIE=; b=Ucyq+wznQ2ApmfXd2gnucecuuadN5coTSKXgPs5n7Jw9UBHdP0ejDLmZAgcwyORk1a Ru/b3brasSuYwwhKr5AMcJmX1rv4e9oES21XTmdbJYtH+6y/LkDnBXM5ic3/doEUJlet uqyOasBc092bfmAHqwRXbgAf8ARbz65UWLnNQAh+pX14Z8qNYDeAfxquxsnllC37Nnl2 1HXsKrWkpzrNPPVqNPBpyctNCqBBTlR1Ynusgrcfa90W3PGUrzoR2XKOUlfbVg1jljNE YAgrVvO8cKPKbSj9NvrOK2qv61JkwqUDz/S9urgDpjlnlee1STc+BR9J0N15e7TJQBa2 QtGQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.252.135 with SMTP id zs7mr37590pbc.194.1378153104516; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (27.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.27]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dg3sm17718714pbc.24.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5224F28E.3040306@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:18:22 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
Subject: Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers
References: <520B3529.80802@si6networks.com> <520BF653.8060603@gmail.com> <522309E1.7050806@globis.net> <5223EC0B.8080607@gmail.com> <5224284E.6020604@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <5224284E.6020604@globis.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-ug@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Sep 2013 20:18:25 -0000

On 02/09/2013 17:55, Ray Hunter wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>> 2 September 2013 03:38
>> Ray,
>>
>>> So AFAICS the u/l restriction and uniqueness restriction is only
>>> relevant when EUI64 is used in the context of specific LAN hardware, but
>>> perhaps not all router interface hardware.
>> The phrasing in the draft looks completely compatible with that to me.
> 
> I'm not sure what the text is trying to say though.

Ray, are you asking for a change in the text? Please be specific.

<snip>

> So any IETF standard that assumes a 1:1 relationship between IID and
> IEEE LAN hardware is heading for trouble.

Agreed - in what way does the draft imply anything else?

(The words in RFC 4291 that we are obsoleting do seem to imply
a 1:1 relationship, but that's what the draft fixes.)

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email