Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
draft-ietf-6man-why64-06
| The information below is for an old version of the document | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (6man WG) | |
| Last updated | 2014-10-02 (latest revision 2014-10-01) | ||
| Replaces | draft-carpenter-6man-why64 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Bob Hinden | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-09-10) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Has enough positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Brian Haberman | ||
| Send notices to | 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-why64@tools.ietf.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
6MAN B. Carpenter, Ed.
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational T. Chown
Expires: April 5, 2015 Univ. of Southampton
F. Gont
SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
S. Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
A. Petrescu
CEA, LIST
A. Yourtchenko
cisco
October 2, 2014
Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
draft-ietf-6man-why64-06
Abstract
The IPv6 unicast addressing format includes a separation between the
prefix used to route packets to a subnet and the interface identifier
used to specify a given interface connected to that subnet.
Currently the interface identifier is defined as 64 bits long for
almost every case, leaving 64 bits for the subnet prefix. This
document describes the advantages of this fixed boundary and analyses
the issues that would be involved in treating it as a variable
boundary.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2015.
Carpenter, et al. Expires April 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Why 64 October 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Advantages of a fixed identifier length . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Arguments for shorter identifier lengths . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Insufficient address space delegated . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Hierarchical addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Audit requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Concerns over ND cache exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Effects of varying the interface identifier length . . . . . 7
4.1. Interaction with IPv6 specifications . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Possible failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Experimental observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.1. Survey of the processing of Neighbor Discovery
options with prefixes other than /64 . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.2. Other Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Implementation and deployment issues . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.5. Privacy issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction
Rather than simply overcoming the IPv4 address shortage by doubling
the address size to 64 bits, IPv6 addresses were originally chosen to
Show full document text