IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 04:24 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 B5DB21273E2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 MJE_a-gRcM0u for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
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 2E837127275 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.185] (unknown [105.50.131.146]) (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 191198024E; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 06:24:23 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170604093119.nt733rb3ymmjssww@Vurt.local> <m1dHTLx-0000DcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <CAAedzxppjnBhVAHF4L4B7WTtwxPGhpOv8ruXOhm=zGwjQ5-OsA@mail.gmail.com> <780257e6-749e-ad9b-4d7a-08e39f46fd1c@gmail.com> <89A69730-B9F3-49B4-942D-EB664A728BDD@employees.org> <dc950594-cb1a-3c36-4538-3b62f58806ed@gmail.com> <CACWOCC93jbqhw+Pigjx5CdHcAmubcx=nQLbOOtjOb81+u6MQow@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdcR+-6AxODiokcSRhRNb-5gcbRx0xwBqQ8AeOqYd2Daw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau08sssc6WnfYL0+7pvC_R5gAdQZu2bKxTyFWcSm0xFh=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2pxzCb_99UA5aR202OE8hMxc_vSwy5TohzSB2etG-Ftg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <143f152c-1854-9402-4390-37782c6a7c3a@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 07:24:03 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2pxzCb_99UA5aR202OE8hMxc_vSwy5TohzSB2etG-Ftg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/uamdFogGn_b48ImjMjYiJnDQmxE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 04:24:10 -0000

On 06/08/2017 03:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:13 AM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu
> <mailto:farmer@umn.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     I think "should be 64" is the correct language, primarily because
>     "must be 64" has been misinterpreted several times to justify hard
>     coding 64 in IPv6 implementations, but also it seems like a false
>     imperative.
> 
> 
> Currently the standard says "are 64 bits long".

This is certainly a historical artifact arising from SLAAC.


> Do we need to change
> that? Can we just say "are 64 bits long except when manually configured"?
> 
>     I think either of these makes it clear 64 bit is the norm, but this
>     should not enforced by an IPv6 implementations or hard coded in some
>     way. 
> 
> 
> I have no issue with manual configuration.
> 
> However, I think IPv6 implementations that don't support manual
> configuration must be able to reject non-64 bit IIDs, since that is the
> standard. Saying "SHOULD be 64 bits long" means they "MAY be /81, /99 or
> /123", and those are against BCP 204 (RFC 7934). 

BCP204 talks about multiple addresses. As long as whatever prefix is
employed allows for multiple addresses, I don't see how that goes
against BCP204.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email