IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 18 August 2017 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 05B5C132677 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rcxt437Zcw0o for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (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 4DE4C1243F6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id z18so45895324qka.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5dNYK3JgbQNUk2nmcDFP7YQZkMZ8mNUkmIoh8+HvE5A=; b=BE96fuiybFmPjLXchkwpRfXcSjugUYwNxC1v46pkNIfwCjebFniHfkm+AkM5CxW3f8 S2C8UIsibUvaIUYD+3xUVwovbahe5AdxLjDife0PrNL4G42MyBr7UqqScPgK6J2Sgvh4 Z7O/4A7AsC6f14f92uwOkEyWxeH+bgEmhiuA2m8XCcqSz406n8jRYP+Dcq3SSxaITJoj od8LpAD8Vh7euvuuHzyyayitQ2334oaj9tL4dbs7XPlDgMDb+vLHg2kCU6OytJUQRxvm KPSM5DlWPiAs4L+Stc1eX7VrG59LrbrR7+MH0AoTA7MfQ3H5Y0kFO28do9/jnu4reBw2 Fh6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5dNYK3JgbQNUk2nmcDFP7YQZkMZ8mNUkmIoh8+HvE5A=; b=hepXxt8qhQKslW9VLDbpG4bbSavH+OBvvpvBQ0v+0gAKRONSDvBKv8cdEHQnNlU9Ap lwGSSfWL9Knb0DZ7/ZBprstcIP1LfsSnIfiCRMZq5xn6zaUzr+u0EMC1/DBtsRfnX3US vKM5SlW2EE6GCIZBeIYR1LquyNDH87ZhvTl+e+a9B/UqM7AYnoB5fDHsFRRDwSOxK1G8 q877DkpiB/AEZafo2C0SxHZI6WiZ2sVIAxpMo+ShEaXwezh9bCJGTSHz3Uug1e8Jc3qt 7dSSNF4NbW6H8My9nWU6Rsja1qjHEWK5n2CW0zWZ7O03gytGq8MusiUX7CbaXnK0UT4k s7iA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gRZHeDLYjbv2FX87HWLFAvAL4t5V0ISeqnf0EabvcYrsoIYNGB Sj568ISp2/pXh+toJIehANGpgvW2Y+9E7z4=
X-Received: by 10.55.92.130 with SMTP id q124mr9392150qkb.274.1503018498309; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.60.60 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <392C32D2-E0C8-477B-9F95-834D193C706A@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2wJBCo1yjguWSy-jzSvndeZTPgtN71FfdEhvqrVAUhZUA@mail.gmail.com> <796A0ED0-0F58-43FA-9F81-D4D736A35F3B@steffann.nl> <BD3B4153-2EEF-4BFB-832D-D126A75AEC11@thehobsons.co.uk> <CAN-Dau2jzbQPuE5diEz-XzfRBHY=O1znE8hfy8P-Eee=MVwC_w@mail.gmail.com> <7C6C4FCC-26B9-493D-9992-4663DE6EB9CE@jisc.ac.uk> <3A69468C-98E4-4631-A52F-3D8772646EEE@consulintel.es> <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> <392C32D2-E0C8-477B-9F95-834D193C706A@gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:08:17 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7YAw1Ed3619ZDexP_YFUGT2HKB4
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeLTB4+yAnYMA_dv-P2urCLvq0gRo-zbtQy_syh9Pc09A@mail.gmail.com>
To: DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WzzH8qLV-LmRNJTOhTtQ3oAJZbM>
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 01:08:21 -0000

At Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:44:18 +0900,
DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, it’s said the IID should not be derived from the link-layer
> address, for privacy. If anything, the link-layer address shall be
> conveyed in an option field of a related packet.
>
> Now, what still mandates the IID length be 64 bits?

There can be several answers, but I don't think such a discussion
helps.  Some people would point to the existing deployment base; some
others might say it just must be sufficiently large and we shouldn't
change the current constant without a reason to avoid confusion.  One
can easily find a counter argument to those, but it will simply lead
to the circle of arguments we've seen.  It's already pretty clear that
neither side can persuade the other just through these email threads.

If the purpose of the question is to change the current standard
value, I'd suggest you write your own draft that updates these RFCs.
Just mumbling in this mailing list won't help change it.  It's just a
waste of our time.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email