Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sat, 14 January 2017 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 DC168129876 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 UswIM1kw2q9i for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7FD129875 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B57CAD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 04:35:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsRrAegvFj1W for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com (mail-vk0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0797DCD1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 75so39995161vkm.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oN59oPvweuCcfvcoVPcu61J9ndm40GdhdczuJwCE1jg=; b=lF079WU0oNsWbBCUwBmI0UTK7Qyc5XXgUssuK4K+dfiATNmcyQ/Ajpqi61sG97CbTE 9a3tRtfHujMbcZXUa2y1DiXKLjx+vvnlLy/pLe6Rt8g6tCumE6FHA9eCbeFDF0ri4Tdj sLP5j05Khy9sR3GAsRvRx3uFvUy9Mtp5nOECtDC7B4SH92yObiRgiwxM61wrXx06eZx6 8+afR6dTN08s0kRIIXCS6xaQoiBo0zH2rx9eukbntuaE62aFPZvpdxnEmlA1/ROYodyz +cQOWTXQqjcIj/vT4t9VUvf9WGPpBpzGfoDcMRSMUDEHDhJ0dAg6nbgQa4OvCO9Qdmda 9VVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oN59oPvweuCcfvcoVPcu61J9ndm40GdhdczuJwCE1jg=; b=J1FbTjRWQ0WSuPfs+85GFyvnHq1A8wfWwPHcvU0RB4tL+r2OUNECA1z6migoR4J3JT DlWgMzcm4DF6SrTalaEZijQMkt9pSQqDVuT03tzZ24gRlzp3dM6ZX4Y81glD2gWmc/Re LqoAHWurwuYzn4rIwuL930jdPE3Ehmv5BQzWN05uKf/P11WRGUOoMfnQ0UwDt4rK3Riy a+2iYdaXRL6FFu28C5SQ/3oSCwk5r8VQIRIHvJud/U6hpYq5afEl3+JARNv5Ra+/QdcE tboqxaJh1B8cJqy5sJ516GHZn0nFWg/rPhZgSZG5b9PP1jH4bodZZFsLBxVxFpXgKmQh jmDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKfRDrgHYja6237gIpdGgRcc8e/y0OIr5TAY8SL6gJG7u7Fo/TAEZakgQ1T9+52QLrMAzqmayhM1j2AGFwBBsfP9bVQEOeJciNjnaNVBi/foZ/8S/1Ui6ZZLv8owF7Y1jnjt0WPKgs9wTU=
X-Received: by 10.159.49.92 with SMTP id n28mr10834457uab.95.1484368528483; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.159.49.92 with SMTP id n28mr10834451uab.95.1484368528319; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.84.15 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:35:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045dd9d8d8b9450546067aff
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/x6h5NPys1RgcsPF0uv5QO6nA3Gs>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
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: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 04:35:35 -0000

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> ....
>
> Which is exactly why we have so far only delegated 1/8 of the
> IPv6 address space for global unicast allocation, leaving a *lot*
> of space for fixing our mistakes. Moving away from /64 as the
> recommended subnet size might, or might not, prove to be necessary in
> the long term future. That's why the point about routing being
> classless is fundamental. I do think we need to be a bit more
> precise on this point in 4291bis.
>
>     Brian


Exactly, /64 is the RECOMMENDED subnet size, or a SHOULD from RFC2119, and
I'm fine with that, but that's not what the following says.

   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.  Background
   on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421>].


It says REQUIRED, that is a MUST from RFC2119, and I believe it to be an
Imperative as discussed in section 6 of RFC2119.

I'm fine with /64, /127 and /128 as the RECOMMENDED subnet sizes, I support
that and believe it to be the consensus of the IETF. Maybe even explicitly
noting /65 through /126 are NOT RECOMMENDED subnet sizes, and not support
by SLACC.  But it is not correct to say the /64 is REQUIRED.

I also believe RFC7608 supports this conclusion.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@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
===============================================