Le 17/02/2017 à 07:32, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
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.
I disagree.
The discussion is about advancing a certain standard.
The advancement direction in which limits are reinforced (64bit seems
now 'required') is not the right direction.
I prefer the old "IPv6 architecture".
Alex
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
<mailto: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
<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
<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
*Cc:* 6man WG <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>;
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto: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
<mailto:otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:____
On Feb 13, 2017, at 14:32, David Farmer <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
<mailto: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
<mailto:jhw(_at_)google(_dot_)com>>____
__ __
__ __
__ __
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
--------------------------------------------------------------------