In my opinion the sentence should be restricted to cases where it's required
to be 64 bit (SLAAC) and allow everything else.
There are enough examples where /127, /126 and /124bit masks are used.
So my favorite version is the one from Brian
However, the Interface ID of unicast addresses used for
Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] is required
to be 64 bits long.
Followed by David's version extended with recommendation of 64bit IID.
Regards
Karsten
Am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017, 17:07:09 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ:
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de David Farmer
<farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu>
Responder a: <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu>
Fecha: martes, 14 de febrero de 2017, 17:03
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
<draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
<6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> 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(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
Agree, we shouldn’t change that. Must be 64 bits.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de David Farmer
<farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu> Responder a: <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu>
Fecha: martes, 14 de febrero de 2017, 16:27
Para: Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
CC: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
<6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, 6man
WG <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> 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(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2017-03-01.
Exceptionally,
>> comments may be
>> sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 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/ballo
>> t/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>> Administrative Requests:
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Administrative Requests:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
<mailto:Email%3Afarmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu>
<mailto:Email%3Afarmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
<mailto:Email%253Afarmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu>> 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.
**********************************************
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------