ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

2017-02-17 06:50:00
From: <otroan(_at_)employees(_dot_)org>
To: "james woodyatt" <jhw(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
Cc: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "6man WG" 
<ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
"IETF-Discussion Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 
<6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 7:44 AM

James,

4291:
   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
   value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
   constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.

4291bis:
   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]

Proposal:
   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
recognised
   in IETF standards track documents.

I think that's a good proposal.
Perhaps with s/is generally required to be/are/

Ole

I would go further on the grounds that this is still somewhat woolly.  I
would say

Proposal':
  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 required to be 64 bits in length; any
exceptions
  must be specified in IETF standards track documents.


It would be nice to have something IANA-like with different categories
of what can update what, with this being at the higher level, the bar
set higher for an Interface ID that is not 64 bits in length, but when
we say 'standards track' we are calling for IETF consensus and IESG
approval and it is hard to see what more could be called for, unless we
say that this is architectural and so the IAB must approve it!

Tom Petch

Best regards,
Ole



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>