Re: IID length text

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

Yep. It's an arbitrary choice, just like the choice to make IPv6 addresses
128 bits long, or the choice to make the header 40 bytes long. That doesn't
mean we should change it.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 17/01/2017 09:42, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Le 14/01/2017 à 20:49, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> A modest suggestion:
> >>>
> >>> OLD
> >>>    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].
> >>>
> >>> NEW
> >>>    IPv6 routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to 128
> >>> [BCP198].
> >>>    For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit  prefixes on
> point-to-point
> >>>    links. However, consistent use of Stateless Address
> Autoconfiguration
> >>>    (SLAAC)[RFC4862] requires that all interfaces on a link use the same
> >>> length
> >>>    of Interface ID. In practice, this means that to guarantee
> >>> interoperability
> >>>    of SLAAC, a fixed length of Interface ID is necessary. For all
> >>> currently
> >>>    allocated unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
> >>>    value 000, that length is 64 bits. Note that this value is an
> arbitrary
> >>>    choice and might be changed for some future allocation of unicast
> >>> address
> >>>    space. Background on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be
> found
> >>>    in [RFC7421].
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with the change suggestion.  The new text and references are
> enough
> >> motivation to clarify that that 64bit limit is an arbitrary choice and
> might
> >> change in the future.
> >>
> >
> > 3GPP assigns 64 bit prefixes to each UE.
> > Extended Unique Identifiers defined are EUI-48 and EUI-64.
> > I don't think 64 bit limit is that arbitrary?
>
> It's a parameter, which we happened to set initially to 48
> and then changed to 64 because of FireWire. I don't know
> why 3GPP chose the same value. But indeed we (the IETF) chose
> it because of our now old-fashioned decision to copy Novell
> Netware by embedding layer 2 addresses in layer 3. A bad
> choice, as it turned out.
>
> The first two definitions of "arbitrary" in Merriam-Webster seem
> to fit, especially the second.
>
> "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance
> or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will"
> "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience
> rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something"
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
> >
> > Behcet
> >
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>    Brian
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> > .
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>