While this is the less preferred approach as far as I'm concerned, I
believe it resolves the issue I raised.
Thanks.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I understand that, but those are two clear exceptions, no others
should be “allowed” by default.
Keeping the door open is not good in my opinion. Specific exceptions
must be taken in consideration one by one.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>> en
nombre de David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx <mailto:farmer@xxxxxxx>>
Responder a: <farmer@xxxxxxx <mailto:farmer@xxxxxxx>>
Fecha: martes, 14 de febrero de 2017, 17:03
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ipv6@xxxxxxxx>>,
<draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@xxxxxxxx>>, IETF-Discussion
Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>>,
<6man-chairs@xxxxxxxx <mailto:6man-chairs@xxxxxxxx>>
Asunto: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP
Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
The problem we want it to be 64 bits except when it's not
suppose to be, such as RFC6164 for point-to-point and RFC6052 for
IPv4/IPv6 translators with /96 Network-Specific Prefix.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:53 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Agree, we shouldn’t change that. Must be 64 bits.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>>
en nombre de David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx <mailto:farmer@xxxxxxx>>
Responder a: <farmer@xxxxxxx <mailto:farmer@xxxxxxx>>
Fecha: martes, 14 de febrero de 2017, 16:27
Para: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>>
CC: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@xxxxxxxx>>, <6man-chairs@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:6man-chairs@xxxxxxxx>>, 6man WG <ipv6@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ipv6@xxxxxxxx>>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>>
Asunto: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP
Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Actually, in addition to your text there still needs to be a
recommendation for 64 bit IIDs in all other cases. 64 bit IIDs
are(and should remain) the norm for IPv6, I do not want to change
that. But the current language say IIDs are always 64 bit except
when an address begins with binary 000, leaving no room for any
other exception. And this is plainly incorrect, I provided two
clear exceptions that are already standardized. Furthermore, IIDs
other than 64 bits are in operational use, with manual configuration
and DHCPv6.
So I'd suggest;
However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
to be 64 bits long, in all other cases it is recommended to
be 64 bits long.
The other option is to enumerate all the exceptions,
requiring the document to be updated every time a new exception is
standardized.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
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.
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> mailing lists by
2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto: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/
<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/
<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 <mailto:ipv6@xxxxxxxx>
>> Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ipv6@xxxxxxxx>
> Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@xxxxxxx> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%253Afarmer@xxxxxxx>> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%253Afarmer@xxxxxxx> <mailto:Email%253Afarmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%25253Afarmer@xxxxxxx>>>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
<tel:612-626-0815> <tel:612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815>>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
<tel:612-812-9952> <tel:612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952>>
===============================================
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
attached files, is prohibited.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@xxxxxxx> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%253Afarmer@xxxxxxx>>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952>
===============================================
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of
the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient
be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@xxxxxxx>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952>
===============================================