Re: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Tatuya,

Le 03/11/2020 à 00:19, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:09:57 -0800, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> First off SLACC works just fine with any size prefix/interface ID. 
>> The protocol supports different sized prefixes/IIDs.   The
>> purported issue relates to interface ID sizes.   These drafts
>> appear to be confused about that.
> 
> +1.  Even the draft title has the confusion: "SLAAC with prefixes of 
> arbitrary length in PIO (Variable SLAAC) - A Problem Statement". The
> SLAAC protocol itself as defined in RFC4862 already works with an 
> arbitrary prefix length.

I think it is an indirect SLAAC-GUA problem.  The IID len problem taints
SLAAC.

Yes, SLAAC spec works with 65bit plens.

No, IIDs defined in IPv6-over-foo are not used anywhere else than in
SLAAC.  SLAAC is the only protocol that uses the IIDs defined in
IPv6-over-foo.

Because of that, if we formulate a problem that is only about IID, then
nobody will want to solve that problem, because nobody uses the IIDs
defined by IPv6-over-foo.

> Today's limitation, i.e., the interface identifier (and therefore
> the prefix also) length used in SLAAC is always 64 bits in practice,
> just comes from the addressing architecture (RFC4291) and
> IPv6-over-foo standards (that are supposed to be consistent with the
> addressing architecture).  If the "problem(s)" the authors see are
> this limitation, the draft should target at the addressing
> architecture and/or IPv6-over-foo specs, not SLAAC.

If we target the problem at the IPv6 Addr Archi, then that RFC might
(lets say) get improved and define IIDs that could be of different
length than 64.  But, at that point, shall we also update _all_
IPv6-over-foo documents to refer to the new IPv6 Address Archi document?

Or maybe should we just write an implementation of variable len SLAAC-GUA?

> So, for example, the title would have to be: "IPv6 subnet prefixes of
> arbitrary length - A Problem Statement"

But subnet prefixes like 65bit length do work ok with ND nowadays.

> or "Arbitrary Length
> Interface Identifiers - A Problem Statement" (both "subnet prefix"
> and "interface identifier" are a concept defined in the address
> architecture).

But who uses Interface Identifiers?  Only SLAAC, I think.

Alex
> 
> -- JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>