That's a valid opinion but it does not reflect the current state of the
IPv6 standards.
Again, let's bear in mind that this discussion is not about changing the
standard, but about reclassifying the existing standards. We can discuss
changing this part of the standard to our heart's content, but *in 6man, on
another document*, not here.
I would be rather surprised if such a discussion ever reached consensus,
but I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from trying.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Manfredi, Albert E <
albert(_dot_)e(_dot_)manfredi(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com> wrote:
RFC 7421 is informational. And many considerations are not so critical
anymore, on a specific stateful format.
I don’t think we need to reinforce the notion that IPv6 must have 64-bit
prefixes, since that is not true now, and should not even be made to apply
to the currently unused address space. So, I’m opposed to text that implies
any such restriction, with the exception of (a) currently used unicast
address space, (b) SLAAC, (c) ULA, possibly other exceptions.
In other words, *exceptions belong to requiring the 64-bit IID*. Any RFC
that implies otherwise, IMO, ought to be subject to a –bis version.
Bert
*From:* ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] *On Behalf Of *james
woodyatt
*Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 17:21
*To:* IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
*Cc:* 6man WG <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
*Subject:* Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version
6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
On Feb 16, 2017, at 13:25, otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org wrote:
On Feb 13, 2017, at 14:32, David Farmer <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu> 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. […]
[…]
The challenge is to find text that enforces the 64-bit boundary policy
(ignoring the technical arguments for a moment), and at the same time
ensures implementors do the right thing and make their code handle any
prefix length. Of course these are interdependent and doing the latter
makes it harder to enforce the first.
I propose the following:
IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to 128
bits [BCP198]. However, as explained in [RFC7421], the Interface ID of
unicast addresses is generally required to be 64 bits in length, with
exceptions only provided in special cases where expressly recognized in
IETF standards track documents.
Trying to help out here.
--james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------