Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Tue, 14 February 2017 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 600721294C2; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:06:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 qdXurjnGDnPz; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE972129699; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2017 19:06:13 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDCED788A; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:06:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=tUgPBc96MmL2tyhZIFs0PkSUU3g=; b= lDPPfGtcQO0Z97m/KwvFHrrs4ikmh892fJ03aPwBntXEuLcEPls/BzocPYOiXxBo lhAPl7lj6UgGiqpnnOwycdP8Tu2Mr9S85KbKPzcEqo5IyMHycvaYJ6jS14iEJuYD t8Rxez2y5EVPfJziPE52oM7rB4lc9ebUuIsB2YTQgmQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=C8Z//jemiiJLjSIfcQ6W61e iGpcEFnmDkBDDE4QPzXFPRSrSVo3ALnDTQGCcdXUX6+JX1IeE67snlrIw9Uv1Fxg IUCPwf1BVNoUZCmYPfzMmF9zYQhjI/4Ifz97ZW+QvZfZ54AeLjwjBewiIZfz+Qt4 4nNs3uzXqwO5ITCcVXPo=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36301D788F; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0388AE114B; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:06:19 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8238D4C0-DA5D-4EEE-BBEF-654D580924CF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:06:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u5Uolzssp1yx-KvrYPBH3w2LT5U>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@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, 14 Feb 2017 19:06:15 -0000

Brian,

> At an earlier stage I suggested restricting the applicability
> of the "However..." sentence to SLAAC [RFC4862]. A short way
> of doing this would be
> 
> However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
> Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
> to be 64 bits long.

Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard.

See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421 (which you by the way are the author of), for the set of documents that would have to change.
There are unknown interoperability issues here as well. As well as architectural considerations that probably should have IAB involvement.

Best regards,
Ole



> On 14/02/2017 11:32, David Farmer wrote:
>> I have concerns with the following text;
>> 
>>   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
>>   128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
>>   on inter-router point-to-point links. However, the Interface ID of
>>   all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
>>   000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
>>   boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
>> 
>> The third sentence seems to limit exceptions to 64 bit IIDs to exclusively
>> addresses that start with binary vale of 000.  There are at least two other
>> exceptions from standards track RFCs, that should be more clear accounted
>> for in this text.  First is [RFC6164] point-to-point links, as mentioned in
>> the previous sentence.  I think the clear intent of [RFC6164] is to allow
>> one(1) Bit IIDs for point to point-to-point links using any Global Unicast
>> Address, not just those that start with 000.  Second is, [RFC6052], which
>> updates [RFC4921] and seems to allow 32 bit IIDs or /96 prefixes for any
>> Global Unicast Address when used for IPv4/IPv6 translation, referred to as
>> ""Network-Specific Prefix" unique to the organization deploying the address
>> translators," in section 2.2 of [RFC6052].
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:51 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>; wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
>>> consider the following document:
>>> - 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
>>>  <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> as Internet Standard
>>> 
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
>>>   Version 6 (IPv6) protocol.  The document includes the IPv6 addressing
>>>   model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6
>>>   unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an
>>>   IPv6 node's required addresses.
>>> 
>>>   This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing
>>>   Architecture".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/
>>> 
>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/ballot/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------