IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - 'conforming IPv6' - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 09 April 2019 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A505A1207F7; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 z6WQTPyQAupo; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com (mail-wr1-f53.google.com [209.85.221.53]) (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 41B98120427; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id p10so21941003wrq.1; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vk4O05ou8yFzLHlYmVhI+QFDKtmWB5+a9QF62ZMxKKI=; b=uT/mff07gCR2UYo4cMKR8Y/oY5DfBWZh6FAZ2rag+TuAORKpHwGHNoJaGTZoqtm3IT IF6C/tbf4JuVgddH5XZGJbNaTlf0giEdCP6BaooYpTGR3MbAPWyHPQPLzRb+/KbjTUSQ pUwZK5Jytgx/90ZqehppLfXKDQDeuPsQWOFrG2n0XDz3MPElS/sQSyWlu0ufd/dO6fLN SdbEVxpRokPFWSfStZ0GRAEeyxiBTPqw1LJ4WpN6tsJg9Pdybek6PdJ0i08uJIidlm4q DHazPm+v6TZzBiWyjhtLBAqrPShCXOlYdAGsXgGNtkFm9SuZkfdhzy1cKA1zKMrXVATX HxIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1ddlg9rCC/ZMiLbeOe2OXscESS4h2G1ad/ozXJoNBZ9lYILtd tM/prtJG09gUrF3SLU4tokXhVAn8xc+VE18T5ks=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzkXODeXNo3PC7b4rRmiuKFP3od0/51rg1gT5SJET7EZ1pGZMHk/DA2LCTZMkqs8TAa7C3YSrtyGD2k6a9uHJo=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:d081:: with SMTP id y1mr24617136wrh.283.1554830060529; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 10:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com> <94941ef0-d0df-e8fe-091b-2e616f595eba@gmail.com> <c052e7a9-9acd-ecdd-9273-3142644dc5cd@gmail.com> <386b9f4c-f9b5-900c-817a-95df68226ed9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <386b9f4c-f9b5-900c-817a-95df68226ed9@gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 10:14:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqf2y=Thg7RM5-ZMXsTrxf9QGJH_E=X3aFEcj-WPZj0eBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, "<int-dir@ietf.org>" <int-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org, its@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000071ac6005861c15fa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/reLp2ObWbFICL2MP_7HdCrAgWww>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - 'conforming IPv6' - fe80::/10 vs fe80::/64
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 17:14:24 -0000

At Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:11:33 +0200,
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> This subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix fe80::/10 and
> >>> the interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 addresses of type
> >>> link-local. " If this is conforming IPv6 then the MUST is not
> >>> needed.
[...]
> >> Do you disagree with it?
> >>
> >> (the reasons why I put there /10 and not /64 are the following: LLs
> >> work in linux with any length between 10 and 64, the ND spec does
> >> not restrict to 64,
> >
> > No, but IPv6-over-foo documents usually do apply that restriction,
> > rather than define 118-bit IIDs.
>
> It is good to know about practice in IPv6-over-foo documents.
>
> What should I do in the IP-over-OCB document: continue that restriction?
> or define 118bit IID with filling in 0s between 64 and position of last
> bit of prefix?

I don't have a strong opinion about specifically what this doc should
say, but "MUST use at least the link-local prefix fe80::/10"
shouldn't be interpreted as if we could use fe80:1::1 as a valid IPv6
link-local address without violating the current addressing
architecture (RFC4291, Section 2.5.6).  If this text can be
interpreted that way, we should definitely revise it.

> (in implementation I already did fe80:1::1/32 as a link-local address on
> OCB at 5.9GHz; the prefix is fe80:1::/32 and the IID is ::1 of length 96
> with 32 leading 0 bits; it works between cars)

It's a violation of the current addressing architecture.  Anyone can
do whatever they want in their pet implementations, but unless/until
this document updates RFC4291 so that it explicitly allows a non-0
value in the intermediate 54 bits, it has nothing to do with this
current discussion.  Non-compliant implementations can work as their
author intends, especially if they don't care about
interoperability.  But that doesn't make it magically standard
compliant.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email