Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 1478712942F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:28:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 NQ7e3a6xnogR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:28:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4522C1294C8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 02:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v23ASYvJ026323; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:28:34 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A0AE204456; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:28:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C66A202781; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:28:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v23ASXb0011554; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:28:34 +0100
Subject: Re: A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <96a5dfe9-0122-0f8c-5ad3-f98dc1867f25@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3rKf1vqb3Fb7emJ75iJ+nTC-Vu=Ude--A0bDV-P8Bcpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99749605-50a7-0920-9ace-2c0278efc750@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:28:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau3rKf1vqb3Fb7emJ75iJ+nTC-Vu=Ude--A0bDV-P8Bcpg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/vISIa9NMoECXN72kb4Ant9iJ3cE>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:28:39 -0000


Le 03/03/2017 à 10:36, David Farmer a écrit :
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Le 02/03/2017 à 23:43, David Farmer a écrit :
>
>
>         2. Subnet Prefixes of 64 bits are RECOMMENDED
>
>
>     I disagree, we dont want to say this.
>
>
> Why, please

It depends in which doc to put it.  It makes sense in RFC2464, or other 
IPv6-over-foo, but not in overall archi doc.

If we are to count, we notice many deployed subnet prefixes are not 64 
(i.e. they wouldnt be non-conformant to this recommendation).

>
>
>         3. IIDs are REQUIRED to be 64 bits
>
>
>     I disagree.
>
>
> Again why, and would be ok to RECOMMEND at least

Depends where: makes sense in IP-over-foo, but not in overall archi 
covering in one paragraph about all foos.

> It seems wrong to completely remove any reference to 64 in the IPv6
> Addressing Architecture, come on.

I agree it is common to talk 64 when introducing IPv6 to someone, when 
looking at a screen dump of rt tables of numerous end nodes, and others. 
  Removing 64 from Archi can look daring, ofensive, hurting, not 
respecting reality.

So one wonders why64?  One source is this EUI-64 originated at IEEE. 
Then 'Modified' EUI-64 at IETF.  Yet EUI-64 is no longer.  It was 
designed to replace 48bit MACs.  It did not succeed: we dont see 
'EUI-64' on Ethernet-based devices, we continue to see 48bit MAC 
addresses even on non-Ethernet devices.  But we hear about EUI-128, 
which would obviously couldnt work with IPv6.

So yes I think it makes sense to remove all 64 from IPv6 Addressing 
Architecture.

Alex

>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================