IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

james woodyatt <jhw@google.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@google.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 0B879129531 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:11:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 coEP-WOYxvpf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:11:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x234.google.com (mail-pg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39554129420 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 11:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 77so3726533pgc.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:11:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=/3RyfH7nUuelE0lqrlr/DuXCGCcetCy1gvtEC4oTWzY=; b=puDmILK2fduqBAJPS0h3bvJBr9kQd54JN3uiturbuQ906odxQYQD+Wha5WEA9PKflO x9PRj8qzbxUkJfo5USp4i58G/0whZry9wvUDB3HRpOicvfrm/uBDI5O6QZx5Q9d7PWEm HpxIyQR3W5I8P2YZ3R0zZJLMT6Hdg9By5uwDC3+437bezsLnFizKcSyOpEVQ0tCf3wcK 68pTEWUr1VSznNLvnSBd82avlFudH8MAwleoflOdihtHhrQNpYdz7Z4usor40+WfhG8/ sMfwqTOTsandBY+Obt61GqoSFbdYhiuPQh5oDwarQ6pIXCHvzcWDFKiKFDCTDvp9k6+4 +Hig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=/3RyfH7nUuelE0lqrlr/DuXCGCcetCy1gvtEC4oTWzY=; b=sU8nni4Q7pWb2Wa6uV6CWs2jQozW0sDyBnKF2qvIDDNbw6ZdS1OQamlxzR+ZjJcmGX v35kY9pyHootBHcir+4YBRFFx5QV8lTCS/dDM+d7GdnxqmB+2uFbqGncmFrHOjfbhFli 7/p00cqUWUMhIVPwNdZOJkTP9KMT5V3gKW1sf/oF/JKhkNcwJt9XxICPOaHsbz9bJGc5 iSZBXwJB8Ed1P1DeEMqxXT6haZ0m/Tjfzlom83405wtIhB+Cl4bPfQOsfXpZdQuUQwDX 1ZpJsZu4B0/MqAJT9r/ApGcC/of2M2TxiBAXsz9DlXVJeHnXCj2UbzZ4giJhLrqc5N5m KeSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kKnFPu4ZdodDVyvhLyHmmI9hdvFR1TfkwsD5Vj95lVY4a40wwOIU9bjSIdctJzALPV
X-Received: by 10.99.160.89 with SMTP id u25mr2192368pgn.92.1488913868751; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:11:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-100-99-230-134.pao.corp.google.com ([100.99.230.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm1307260pgb.36.2017.03.07.11.11.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:11:07 -0800 (PST)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Message-Id: <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3BB813D-20A2-4885-B955-FE9E5A9147C9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:11:06 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <a484b60f9d9b4fcea24dc320c550da2c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ee764408573b4db4b22e58c4ea5f289c@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2c0ab33b-abbe-caf1-6147-0c583d7f5d61@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0bSPiubeDOFeJAg6H0wP0ZNDS514eedmJtkOqHTXWOOw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yQRfXJZn_Fu5pFxcoXmpNI8Fv30>
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 19:11:15 -0000

On Mar 7, 2017, at 11:05, Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
> 
> Last Paragraph of Section 6.3.4 
> 
> "  Similarly,[ADDRCONF] may impose certain restrictions on the prefix length for
>    address configuration purposes.  Therefore, the prefix might be
>    rejected by [ADDRCONF] implementation in the host.  However, the
>    prefix length is still valid for on-link determination when combined
>    with other flags in the prefix option."
> 
> It allows for rejection in ADDRCONF as LwIP does, but requires on-link determination.

Respectfully, my concern is that the Note, which immediately follows that excerpt (see my previous message), provides sufficient clarification that on-link determination is not REQUIRED to proceed if Prefix Length is invalid for address configuration purposes in a host that implements RFC 4862. It is merely OPTIONAL.


--james woodyatt <jhw@google.com <mailto:jhw@google.com>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email