IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 04 August 2017 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 4397F131FD3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 BIkBavrD0MWD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (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 5DA42131F6A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23FC92E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:58:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QS1LofxwGtKs for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 08:58:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-f70.google.com (mail-vk0-f70.google.com [209.85.213.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACF5BB73 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 08:58:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-f70.google.com with SMTP id a123so6666485vkc.11 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w+PNU1OT/eWxvsOzbQXK4XnOzYTi3ly4Nzk4IkceWWc=; b=IppebFPoy432tKqEP15mFNyToyMqdA/gc5h3DoJt8W01Qqzaz2zQbykl1rw1FMKGPq ENljvx+HQbb/k24BpKr7rBLer64zjmz6gD3XFjlIk2wWHyKNe2JxlGUNaaM+qPX3tXru dpMUpClQXkxjMHqLSVEkBNl75qWmCvpAZOs0FKjuV7235SBbCUuiFbdzOY6gi1bo6s5+ EUo4iXpYNRgzFrZyaTNl5/QmNaA0FLxWYL3Ui05928luNt8jLAJxOIbjGjIDI6gPYXr/ YLMzYmVqN7z8vY2XMDpAOlrDUZ8plfclOQzAwZLo3h47Yw2gpAgZozFSJwICEqRTDidn 1xqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w+PNU1OT/eWxvsOzbQXK4XnOzYTi3ly4Nzk4IkceWWc=; b=JkNsMN9qBFjUsHWnnxdnmER/gVASYzuf/1lLHOkLUdBB5WZpuHqb645ATTMQ1DUxQ4 KimAoMAxeoSEZGNiUnNu+tGWN3b/12IVpeR41MDe08hdFGHgNwua5NjARu61OfhgxE8f pZSDAV9djXOeftsQa+Obqzu+ucgrZMTJ1Y5VwFjeVhFHqqBMuCVf4aw3VzSiApokmFJi jg9J8ZvAO3F8YoNGA7NOr/Mu6vq75VeC6D9G4Im6lZypBElYwdJ35osrBJMLhqd2D3im 7dky/7zplwlnwwCp7whSqoFEMZ2KeYMIqjguQud7fd91ep6aDyNJRMdOZwyAHQpcZxxH gOuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jXtYPzayweUROfDaqc/M5wiqsVqeJHJOiViAyLpaHyMwxeRXDc scUoenX7yjRCZM+S12wxBwIaZ95yrvwmohyzjrVI7XhRo77X4tkjd+UKA+w+1G9ht1o5zgjUoDJ /wZ9ZyZkH1M8VxH/Y
X-Received: by 10.159.33.211 with SMTP id 77mr1476871uac.218.1501855128168; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.159.33.211 with SMTP id 77mr1476860uac.218.1501855127979; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 06:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.72.221 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8DA09B07-00EE-4132-9125-8FED16582F66@gmail.com>
References: <150148445751.17707.15424999122129322815@ietfa.amsl.com> <2E470571-1620-4527-9489-D4D953000040@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708040512220.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <336987B8-56B0-4C59-A9B1-8B91D4D09BD1@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708040927370.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <3D12AB07-7CE4-4625-ADDF-5F7CEC8CB115@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708041013350.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <0E577FCD-857E-4F2D-947B-D4AA201DE346@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708041051180.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8DA09B07-00EE-4132-9125-8FED16582F66@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 08:58:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0dQVz_P7Fi1Ngt46CpTRmVM=cvk1AqgGaecvhUx+FhqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135526068689a0555ede52a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/dL9kcF9Ci-5knw5zAMYOwJvfI-Q>
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, 04 Aug 2017 13:58:53 -0000

I don't see how whole subnet or prefix assigned to just a single host is
incompatible with with RFC4291 or RFC4291bis in any way.

That said there was some discussion of adding a reference to RFC7934 - Host
Address Availability Recommendations, which introduces the concept of
assigning a whole /64 to an individual host.  I think its still think that
is a good idea, and maybe adding a reference to this would be a good idea
too. It does represent a bit of an evolution in the subnet model.

But, again I don't see how it is incompatible with ether RFC4291 or
RFC4291bis

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:56 AM, DY Kim <dykim6@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, I’ll try again.
>
>   o No concept of ‘node prefix’ is mentioned in 4291bis.
>
>   o 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host’ talks about ‘node
> prefix’.
>
> Although 'draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host’ is not meant to
> change the standard 4291bis, isn’t that in conflict with 4291bis in that
> the draft uses a notion not defined in the parent standard.
>
> --------
> Regards,
> DY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Aug 2017, at 17:52, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, DY Kim wrote:
> >
> >> All mentioned in 4291bis is the subnet prefix, not the node prefix.
> >
> > It's impossible for me to follow your comments when you're changing what
> document you're talking about all the time.
> >
> > draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host doesn't propose any change
> in standards. Agreed?
> >
> > So your above comment, what is that about? How does it relate to
> draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host ?
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email