IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Tue, 11 July 2017 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 D394B12EC51 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 Pb7NyhaJDm6U for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (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 924B7127201 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v6B0Lagm030044; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:36 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v6B0LVWN029942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:31 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:30 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:30 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
Thread-Topic: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
Thread-Index: AQHS+SDP3OTJu1pEb0ubfyaiRp6wkqJNwW2AgAAMmoCAAFh6gP//l4BA
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:21:30 +0000
Message-ID: <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/x_nLzliBsv_a1cRW-pC5L4xuBwg>
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:21:38 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter

> Agreed. On the other hand, maybe rough consensus could be
> achieved with s/required/recommended/, even if some objections
> remain.

The problem I have is mainly that in the ebb and flow of these continuing discussions, one sees the "IIDs must be 64 bits wide" creeping back in, again and again. Where instead, the rough consensus seems to have become, must be 64-bits wide unless the addresses are statically configured or are provided by DHCPv6. In the latter cases, 64-bit IIDs might still be "recommended," but in fact, the on-link prefix length can be from zero to 128 bits, and the IID must therefore be 128 - prefix length.

Why not just state those two exceptions outright? Citing RFCs that mandated 64-bit IIDs doesn't hold much weight, if the rationale for doing so has been deprecated. Or they may be cited, but with that proviso. Yes, LLAs and ULAs still require 64-bit IIDs, as does SLAAC (to try to thwart a "race to the bottom").

I too was impressed with the thoroughness of David Farmer's thesis, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't change the above.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email