Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Le 2013-02-02 à 16:02, Fernando Gont a écrit : > On 02/02/2013 07:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >>> Both are *experiments*. Neither is a standard. >>> >>> With respect to Softwire, they decided to standardise >>> something other than 4rd. Had they decided to >>> standardise 4rd, my views would

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 02/02/2013 07:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> Both are *experiments*. Neither is a standard. >> >> With respect to Softwire, they decided to standardise >> something other than 4rd. Had they decided to >> standardise 4rd, my views would be different, >> but that wasn't the decision actually ma

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013-02-01 21:57, RJ Atkinson : > > On 01 Feb 2013, at 10:30 , Rémi Després wrote: >> Each of the designs we are interested in depends, to be complete, >> on reservation of a subset of the IID space left unused by RFC4291 >> (that having u=g=1). > > Both are *experiments*. Neither is a stan

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 01 Feb 2013, at 10:30 , Rémi Després wrote: > Each of the designs we are interested in depends, to be complete, > on reservation of a subset of the IID space left unused by RFC4291 > (that having u=g=1). Both are *experiments*. Neither is a standard. With respect to Softwire, they decided t

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 01/02/2013 15:26, RJ Atkinson wrote: > On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:37 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I looked at the ILNP RFCs while we were preparing >> draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00, and it seemed to me that >> ILNP doesn't in fact use IIDs, but rather a redefinition >> of the bottom 64 bits as a Node

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Ran, Going directly to your conclusion, it appears we have a clear common interest! Each of the designs we are interested in depends, to be complete, on reservation of a subset of the IID space left unused by RFC4291 (that having u=g=1). Since you talk about "a small portion" of this space for

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 01 Feb 2013, at 09:37 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I looked at the ILNP RFCs while we were preparing > draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00, and it seemed to me that > ILNP doesn't in fact use IIDs, but rather a redefinition > of the bottom 64 bits as a Node Identifier [RFC6741]. ILNPv6 changes the *se

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Ran, I looked at the ILNP RFCs while we were preparing draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00, and it seemed to me that ILNP doesn't in fact use IIDs, but rather a redefinition of the bottom 64 bits as a Node Identifier [RFC6741]. Doesn't that separate the use of the u/g bits for ILNP completely from their us

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 31 Jan 2013, at 13:11 , Rémi Després wrote: > What ensures 4rd doesn't conflict with ILNP isn't at all > that ILNP only uses u=0. > > It is that, in ILNP, no u=g=1 is used in *unicast* addresses > (those whose IIDs are specified by RFC 4291). This is still inaccurate. I REALLY would be

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Hello Ray, 2013/1/31, Ray Hunter : >> GangChen >> 31 January 2013 08:53 >> 2013/1/30, Ray Hunter : >>> inline. >>> >>> Ole Troan wrote: Brian, - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be available to propose

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Ran, Oops! I must really apologize for having given a wrong reason why 4rd doesn't conflict with ILNP as specified by RFCs. (I didn't check yesterday what I had understood, some time ago, after reading some of the ILNP RFCs, and definitely mischaracterized the reason). What ensures 4rd doesn

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013-01-31 16:35, Ray Hunter : >> Rémi Després >> 31 January 2013 15:44 >> 2013-01-31 11:42, Ole Troan : >> >>> agree with what Ray says. that gives a path forward for 4rd without >>> requiring us to settle the interface-id structure question. >> >> Do you m

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > agree with what Ray says. that gives a path forward for 4rd without requiring > us to settle the interface-id structure question. For what it's worth, I also agree with Ray. Nothing brought forward by or from 4rd have convince me about anyth

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Remi, PLEASE STOP making incorrect statements about ILNP. Perhaps you haven't had time to read the full ILNP literature, but your (repeated) claims about ILNP are wrong -- contradicted by published papers, etc. For those who'd like to read more about ILNP, a reasonably complete archive of ILN

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

> Rémi Després > 31 January 2013 15:44 > 2013-01-31 11:42, Ole Troan : > >> agree with what Ray says. that gives a path forward for 4rd without >> requiring us to settle the interface-id structure question. > > Do you mean by this that "4rd will work perfectly w

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013-01-31 11:42, Ole Troan : > agree with what Ray says. that gives a path forward for 4rd without requiring > us to settle the interface-id structure question. Do you mean by this that "4rd will work perfectly well _without_ this reservation"? - If not, please clarify what you mean. - If

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Ray, Thanks for the acknowledgements of point that are now understood. More clarification inline on others. 2013-01-31 12:32, Ray Hunter : > Rémi Després wrote: >> 2013-01-30 16:59, Ray Hunter : >> ... >>> my 2 cents. >>> >>> If 4rd is truly experimental then indeed I think it's up to the >

Re: Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Rémi Després wrote: > 2013-01-30 16:59, Ray Hunter : > ... >> my 2 cents. >> >> If 4rd is truly experimental then indeed I think it's up to the >> operators deploying it to ensure they choose a unique IID range within >> the scope of where they are operating 4rd (between tunnel endpoints and >>

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013-01-31 11:26, Ray Hunter : >> GangChen >> ... >> Just some comments from operational views. I guess it's true operators >> could avoid confliction with u=1 g=1 in near future. However, I >> believe that is relative short-term guarantee with the condition of a >>

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

agree with what Ray says. that gives a path forward for 4rd without requiring us to settle the interface-id structure question. cheers, Ole On Jan 31, 2013, at 11:26 , Ray Hunter wrote: >> GangChen >> 31 January 2013 08:53 >> 2013/1/30, Ray Hunter : >>> inline. >>>

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013-01-30 16:59, Ray Hunter : ... > my 2 cents. > > If 4rd is truly experimental then indeed I think it's up to the > operators deploying it to ensure they choose a unique IID range within > the scope of where they are operating 4rd (between tunnel endpoints and > the tunnel gateway). This m

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

> GangChen > 31 January 2013 08:53 > 2013/1/30, Ray Hunter : >> inline. >> >> Ole Troan wrote: >>> Brian, >>> >>> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be >>> available to propose a draft to this effect. >> Seems reasonable. >>

Re: Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013/1/30, Ray Hunter : > inline. > > Ole Troan wrote: >> Brian, >> >> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be >> available to propose a draft to this effect. > Seems reasonable. > > >> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unus

Re: Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

inline. Ole Troan wrote: > Brian, > > - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be > available to propose a draft to this effect. Seems reasonable. > (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of > IIDs having u=1 is re

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Le 2013-01-30 à 14:34, Ole Troan a écrit : > Remi, > > I still think we need to answer the question Brian raised. > should the interface-id have any encoded meaning? That will not be done overnight. I've been thinking about it and have some ideas about how to write a dis

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Hi, > if we agree that the interface-id is just 64bits of nothingness, then there > is no such thing as an unused IID space. > pick whatever you like for the 4rd IID, but your protocol needs to deal with > collisions. Dealing with collisions is very probably necessary anyway (virtual machine

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Remi, I still think we need to answer the question Brian raised. should the interface-id have any encoded meaning? >>> >>> That will not be done overnight. I've been thinking about it and >>> have some ideas about how to write a discussion draft, but it is >>> unfortuante to make the 4r

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

2013-01-29 18:28, Ole Troan : ... >>> I still think we need to answer the question Brian raised. >>> should the interface-id have any encoded meaning? >> >> That will not be done overnight. I've been thinking about it and >> have some ideas about how to write a discussion draft, but it is >>

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 01/29/2013 10:18 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > [...] >>> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of >>> IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of space for future >>> uses of IIDs having u=1, as explicitly expected in RFC 4291. >> >> That goes to the argument of (d)

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

> should the interface-id have any encoded meaning? having spent a decade+ fighting to throw magic bits out of ipv6 addressing (remember tla?), i find this disturbing. randy IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Adm

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Brian, - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be available to propose a draft to this effect. >>> Seems reasonable. >>> >>> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of sp

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

On 29/01/2013 13:18, Ole Troan wrote: > [...] > >>> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be >>> available to propose a draft to this effect. >> Seems reasonable. >> >> >>> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of >>> IIDs having u=g=1 is re

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Hi, > I still think we need to answer the question Brian raised. > should the interface-id have any encoded meaning? I don't see any benefit of certain bits in the interface-id having special meanings, but that might be because of a lack of vision on my side :-) - Sander --

Re: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

[...] >> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be >> available to propose a draft to this effect. > > Seems reasonable. > > >> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of >> IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of space for futu

RE: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

> -Original Message- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Rémi Després > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:20 AM > To: Bob Hinden > Cc: 6man 6man-wg > Subject: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture > > Hi, Bob,

RE: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

rg] On Behalf Of R >émi Després >Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:20 AM >To: Bob Hinden >Cc: 6man 6man-wg >Subject: 4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture > >Hi, Bob, > >The discussion on whether the proposed 4rd IID range is "compatible with the >IPv6

4rd IID range & IPv6 addressing architecture

Hi, Bob, The discussion on whether the proposed 4rd IID range is "compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture" has apparently come to a standstill. Yet an answer of 6man to Softwire is expected. A. To help making a WG decision, here are key points that, in my understanding, emerged from th