Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

[David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>> but i am having a hard time reconciling 2.4.4's insistence on a
>> mandatory 64-bit uuid in all unicast global addresses with 2.4.0, rfc
>> 6141, widespread operational practice, ...  clue bat please.
>
> This was discussed extensively in 6MAN and resulted in RFC7421
> "Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing”.  The text in
> rfc4291bis is:
>
>    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
>    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.
>    Background on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in
>    [RFC7421].

thanks for the review that the wg came to this decision in conflict with
operational practice and its own statement in 2.4.0.  i did read the
documents.

since it is incorrect, ietf last call seems to be the time to fix it.

to be clear, i have no problem with iids being 64-bit.  my issue is with
unicast globals being classful in 2.4.4.

randy

Randy I take your point, but this supposed conflict isn't new, it's not introduced in 4291bis, it goes back to RFC3513.  Do you have a suggestion how to change this within the context of advancing this to Internet Standard?

--

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
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
===============================================