Le 11/04/2019 à 15:26, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
Hi Alex,
On Apr 11, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Le 11/04/2019 à 13:38, Ole Troan a écrit :
I actually don't know if "this ipv6-over-80211ocb spec
needs to rely on the use of a non-0 value in the
intermediate 54 bits", btw. If that's not the case, it's
much safer and less controversial to just not mention it
(either in the form of "LL prefix length" or more
explicitly). I guess that's also what others are
suggesting (and I agree with them in that sense).
There is the option of being silent about the prefix length of
IPv6 LLs in the IPv6-over-OCB document. There is the option of
mentioning "fe80::/10", but with "Updates 4291 section X" in
the header of the 1st page. There is the option of proving by
implementation that fe80:1::1/32 on OCB is not harmful to
others.
Two of these options will likely prohibit consensus being reqched
on this document. I encourage you to carefully consider how to
best spend your time and the time of the particpants in the
involved set of working groups.
YEs, thank you for the advice Ole. I need to take care how to
spend my time. Maybe try to avoid taking on directions that are
known to be dead ended.
I read your message as a warning that I take seriously. For that,
I would like to ask you whether you make this suggestion as a WG
Chair of 6man WG? Or as a contributor to other WGs?
<AD Hat On> I would like to look at this from a different angle. It
is clear from the current standards that you need to be using
fe80::/64 to form the LL address as the IPv6 address architecture
requires the IID to be 64 bits long (for non b000 prefixes) and SLAAC
requires the prefix and the IID lengths to add up to 128. If you want
this changed, I don’t think this is the document where you should do
it. The *burden of proof is on you* to show why the status quo does
not work in this case and IMHO it has not been meet.
I would request that you keep the link-local prefix length discussion
out of this draft, and in 6man where it belongs. Here is the thread
that you started in January this year in 6man
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SD0OSOxFe9UGExX84u_CQSdfOsM
and the associated draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-petrescu-6man-ll-prefix-len/
If you wish to pursue this topic further, please do so with *that*
draft. An IP-over-foo document is not a place to do such a major
architectural change.
Well ok, but I would like to pursue that draft without opposition.
The draft did have discussion yet it got refused for presentation.
I would like to avoid ping pong.
Alex
Thanks Suresh
