IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC4862 and 64-bit IID (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 5E3B41294C8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.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 lKqAr_4nR8ZJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x233.google.com (mail-pg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::233]) (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 A5414129486 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id f185so52683838pgc.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aotGLDy0ptSybROfi7ZVzo1vn/6Zr+Pbei+Qyj/rIGk=; b=m+T/YHQptvuhZ6061EbnK8ovhvNRunqRXY2nkPD2LdymULqdKuMyW9GCInm5KGOwLK IAi0Y6AoSkQdLWLm96wyDQ1/Fk5YolbwfxK7dh/ejPNGc4q/C0WF7qayDUPUvusknZVW 7sTLUn3wrrfUiSiyb3FFMp0q56DZob3udYKMuET+jhuJV6Flz3E55/RKYpB3Q8W66Pxc QW2Cfjqsr7Cwb0s/CCEnNcEsn3C1yzVoXQ7cvJsmgr80RbqVS+8XTvcpxMub//E/8hOK SVJ3yDxzlaU8pygx+RJuw+MEzn82co2bf/EIM4hY510gHXVIIZSASWOg4/2DJIFEU9EE fejA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aotGLDy0ptSybROfi7ZVzo1vn/6Zr+Pbei+Qyj/rIGk=; b=Fy2CPTde5FeJkjgW0EHIUM5KaK/fYzNYvouFDydMD3vIo29stXWymPYx/doQPD2aa5 0OFhBMiGzgjgAAFFJpgH54v0i16jKh/cyPepkWxqb/phnbqTlXx/WNdvTNTOhr6NxUw5 63zR/sOxx5wMctK0OfS/XAp5zP8HSe+eNn5ioKyQLXF2ez4PlySrT5k0Cfo4y6uLpR2F 5VB5m9x9V/AKT/P4dt9EnhVy90DSAbgeECuR8zidX9pSxYAI527IbgVsptF5Cy29JJZH /Ox2oLy15txUOAaUnrzEzMccCZoXM/SMv9XhyP1v1sULruvherAW7Vubh+MNFVkMyeKQ 1IOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxzXFoof1fZa6QyE5BOmK0BsA0YnuMQkWys367pfzAIJvCoVN8z aos56vykVYZD2mue
X-Received: by 10.99.149.83 with SMTP id t19mr1893618pgn.247.1497902460889; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.109.213] (125-236-219-163.adsl.xtra.co.nz. [125.236.219.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n63sm22352075pfa.62.2017.06.19.13.00.59 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: RFC4862 and 64-bit IID (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com> <34A29D4D-3670-40BC-B62E-85C4EABC55D5@employees.org> <426b1b86-575f-77e5-67d6-9b1fef55d074@gmail.com> <04CE008D-7A07-468B-A8AB-5A00C70C68AA@employees.org> <m2h8znsvb4.wl%jinmei@wide.ad.jp> <CAAedzxp3JFwu=9CF=k=W2r2z_X9_Yd1kcwtWjn7zhNCoxSCEww@mail.gmail.com> <20170619164512.hbysyxqfps7jh7rc@Vurt.local> <CAN-Dau0vGq-PTTkezEFmpAVFKXzvoJLkryTTKZpeNkG85xqShA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <e17595c1-a9bc-ad4c-ba19-e50db949d609@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:00:58 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0vGq-PTTkezEFmpAVFKXzvoJLkryTTKZpeNkG85xqShA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zXwNlXxy7Qz84hZ1BZAt6BgDgmg>
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:01:03 -0000

On 20/06/2017 05:16, David Farmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:26:24AM +0900, Erik Kline wrote:
>>>> I'd also note once again that this discussion has nothing to do with
>>>> the fact that we can perform 'ifconfig en0 2001:db8::1/120'.  This
>>>> operation configures a 128-bit IPv6 address with 120-bit on-link
>>>> prefix.  On-link prefixes have always been variable, and they have
>>>> nothing to do with IID length or SLAAC.  We don't have to update
>>>> addr-arch or RFC4862 because of this.  (draft-bourbaki-6man-
>>>> classless-ipv6-00 seems to be confused on this point, and I suspect
>>>> it increases the confusion and controversy in this whole thread).
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> Is there a document that states that IPv6 routers and hosts must support
>> on-link prefixes of all sizes?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
> 
> I believe this is what RFC7608 says, except I don't think it uses the term
> on-link, which it probably should.

Consistent terminology for the different uses of the word "prefix"
is emerging as a major problem in this debate.

I don't see any distinction in RFC7608 between the on-link prefix
and the prefix used for address assignment purposes such as SLAAC.
The distinction in 7608 is between an amalgam of those two and
the prefix used in routing protocols.

     Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email