Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - fe80::/10

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

I removed the fe80::/10 word and submitted version -38.

Alex

Le 11/04/2019 à 13:50, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> Here is my take on the options below:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec needs to
>>>> rely on the use of a non-0 value in the intermediate 54 bits", btw.
>>>> If that's not the case, it's much safer and less controversial to
>>>> just not mention it (either in the form of "LL prefix length" or
>>>> more explicitly).  I guess that's also what others are suggesting
>>>> (and I agree with them in that sense).
>>
>> There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of
>> IPv6 LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document.
> 
> - other recent docs are also silent about the LL prefix length; by this
>    silence some understand it as being variable.  For example RFC7217
>    "Stable and Opaque IIDs for SLAAC".
> 
> - being silent about fe80::/10 (dont say "fe80::/10") does not remove
>    the current text reference to RFC4291 (see at the end of the email).
>    A reader is thus led into reading rfc4291 about LLs.  That text can be
>    understood either as "fe80::/64" or as "fe80::/10" with 54 0 bits.  It
>    can not be understood as fe80:1::1/32 that I use.
> 
>    Should we remove the reference to RFC4291 too?
> 
>    Shoulwd we replace it with a reference to IANA page that says
>    "fe80::/10".
> 
>> There is the option of mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates 4291
>> section X" in the header of the 1st page.
> 
> I prefer this option.
> 
> Be silent about "fe80::/10" in the running text but modify 1st page of 
> IPv6-over-OCB document such that:
> - tell "Updates RFC4291 [*]" on the header of the 1st page,
> - and "[*]: RFC4291 section 2.5.6 figure has variable-value 54bits
>    (instead of 0 value)" on the bottom of 1st page.  There is some place
>    there.
> 
> If you think that this looks more like an Errata, think that an Errata 
> on this topic has already been filed to RFC4291.  It is Errata ID 4406 
> available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4406.
> 
> The conclusion of that Errata is: "[...] The re-definition of the 
> link-local address would need to be driven by a draft updating RFC 
> 4291." There is already an Internet Draft to try to update this.  The 
> Internet Draft is draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len.
> 
>> There is the option of proving by implementation that fe80:1::1/32 on
>> OCB is not harmful to others.
> 
> I agree with this option too.  I would invite the practice inclined to 
> test it further.  There is a small easy thing to do: try 'ifconfig eth0 
> add fe80:1::1/32 on a command line on Android wifi interface', and 
> report here whether it works or not.  It would be a small step forward.
> 
> Alex
> 
>>
>> Alex
>>
>