IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

sthaug@nethelp.no Sat, 10 June 2017 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 B783712943C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 Hi23ptCClpKH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75ED7128CF0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B23E6067; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:15:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 23:15:24 +0200
Message-Id: <20170610.231524.41691706.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: farmer@umn.edu
Cc: otroan@employees.org, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau38xD0oZ-0xe3K=VYgwAU25z6ySp7BgMj8HQ2iG96AoRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr3SUOPd+5H66WPc2ikxauVWVG2ZBjFTHoFOQPCEYTBdiA@mail.gmail.com> <4B891D4C-96E7-42F4-9A38-EBA7B3466BE0@employees.org> <CAN-Dau38xD0oZ-0xe3K=VYgwAU25z6ySp7BgMj8HQ2iG96AoRA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wQuXfUZKjaEiCs41n0Gh9-Hl7ME>
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:15:29 -0000

I agree with the general comments about confusing classic IPv4 subnet
prefix(mask) terminology with IIDs and on-link prefixes for IPv6.

> The IID is only used to generate an address, once the address has been
> generated the IID and its length are actually irrelevant, the address
> itself is 128 bits long, and only the on-link prefix and length is relevant
> in determining locality.

An explicit statement that IID is only relevant for SLAAC would be
very welcome.

> So, I think if we stop using subnet prefix vocabulary with IPv6, we might
> find consensus and resolve this conflict.

That may well work for the people on this list. Unfortunately, I'm not
optimistic about ACME Company's Joe network manager understanding it.

Steinar Haug, AS2116

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email