IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 18 August 2017 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B134132198 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham 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 GoyccVph-2Hm for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34BE132195 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v7IIOpKm100319 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:51 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 87258204638 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA3F2045D7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.111] ([132.166.84.111]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v7IIOot8026394 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:51 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <20170807110746.GG45648@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xXXjKUZ8qQY+b1NgDagX2ZJkqL5gieD+_js59ucp0EMw@mail.gmail.com> <20170810055819.GQ45648@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2xtfsYbw+Wf=ZjyFCmnDbhL17QCkWWRJ7F1+BgGCRiipg@mail.gmail.com> <51268C23-40F4-4476-9025-A1DD3BA37BC3@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAKD1Yr0uBU-LczaZJ5SdNpb_FpB0qfZJ0kNnr=gEviD+F3DTZw@mail.gmail.com> <B13F6A0A-BF0A-404B-A332-5A228F4AFC07@thehobsons.co.uk> <7CB3B027-714C-4F18-8AD9-E76060137891@employees.org> <DCFE724E-B207-4527-82A1-5A268AC29989@gmail.com> <E673D8E0-7A55-490C-8316-77E178026C58@employees.org> <82CBE1F8-F9A5-463F-8DB1-B92E5A3F6582@gmail.com> <009d739f-f1e3-0212-c105-48f16768e0d0@gmail.com> <85D0C0DD-D09D-4DE9-A8A7-42C04071484B@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcimqX+L+F9SvZVNYV_Aj9NXVovbs=XzunfS9qDbiJw2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1Lcp5P2m7rvKTfuYXv=k1k5z_9q4RyJkWCfZzgjG0b9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd31N6bTZtXRcLtamqCfdeDEHjDHRjVonoN6v-tTyf5qA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c03f1c5-8930-6930-9f93-ddfb85c8e825@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:24:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqd31N6bTZtXRcLtamqCfdeDEHjDHRjVonoN6v-tTyf5qA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VSh9khFKr6_D0zW9sElWQynEJrk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:24:57 -0000


Le 18/08/2017 à 19:46, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:16:52 +0900,
> Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> 
>>> This is not correct.  SLAAC implementations faithful to the spec
>>> should leave the IID length (and therefore its prefix length) open to
>>> the underlying link-type specification (such as RFC2464).  It's not
>>> open to be configurable/settable by the admin.
>>
>> Actually, even more than that. For everything except ::/3 (which it is
>> unlikely that any implementation will encounter), IIDs are 64 bits long
>> because of RFC 4291.
> 
> I knew that, and I actually considered to note that, too.  But I chose
> the most straightforward explanation to point out that the prefix/IID
> len is NOT "open to be configurable/settable by the admin" according
> to the protocol specification, in order to avoid unnecessary
> distraction.
> 
>> Personally, I think this is why there is such a lack of consensus on
>> 4291bis. The lack of consensus is about the future, not the
>> present.Currently, any new link layer that is defined has to either use
>> 64-bit IIDs or update 4291. And any new address assignment mechanism that
>> is based on IIDs has to use 64-bit IIDs. If we change 4291bis to allow
>> non-64-bit IIDs, that all goes out of the window.
> 
> I agree that it's one major source of confusion that both addrarch and
> link-type specs define the IID length (and the former defines it per
> address space basis and the latter defines it for a particular link
> type, and therefore these two could easily be inconsistent).  Although
> I don't know if that's why we don't have consensus for 4291bis.
> 
> Anyway, isn't this thread about draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07?

Is  draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07 free to use non-64 
prefixes per host?  Or must it use 64bit prefix per host?

Alex

> I'm not sure why we are talking about our favorite topic of 64-bit (or
> not) IIDs here:-)  This thread is even more inappropriate for that
> topic than 4291bis (even where it's out of scope as it's not feasible
> to change that as part of promoting it to IS).  People who want to
> discuss the endless IID length debate should really aware of the scope
> of the topic.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email