Hi Brian,
With all due respect, but this is my comment:
Le 13/02/2017 à 23:53, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
At an earlier stage I suggested restricting the applicability
of the "However..." sentence to SLAAC [RFC4862]. A short way
of doing this would be
However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
to be 64 bits long.
SLAAC RFC4862 does _not_ require that IID to be 64bit long. It is
RFC2464 IP/Eth which requires it so. And that RFC is being updated also.
I am very much against continuing with this 64bit limit.
I am struggling on at least two different occasions, with two different
deployments, because of this 64bit limit.
Smiley :-)
Alex
Regards
Brian
On 14/02/2017 11:32, David Farmer wrote:
I have concerns with the following text;
IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
128 [BCP198]. For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
on inter-router point-to-point links. However, the Interface ID of
all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
000, is required to be 64 bits long. The rationale for the 64 bit
boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]
The third sentence seems to limit exceptions to 64 bit IIDs to exclusively
addresses that start with binary vale of 000. There are at least two other
exceptions from standards track RFCs, that should be more clear accounted
for in this text. First is [RFC6164] point-to-point links, as mentioned in
the previous sentence. I think the clear intent of [RFC6164] is to allow
one(1) Bit IIDs for point to point-to-point links using any Global Unicast
Address, not just those that start with 000. Second is, [RFC6052], which
updates [RFC4921] and seems to allow 32 bit IIDs or /96 prefixes for any
Global Unicast Address when used for IPv4/IPv6 translation, referred to as
""Network-Specific Prefix" unique to the organization deploying the address
translators," in section 2.2 of [RFC6052].
Thanks.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:51 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture'
<draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> as Internet Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP
Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing
model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6
unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an
IPv6 node's required addresses.
This document obsoletes RFC 4291, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture".
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------