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) | |
Authors | Brian Carpenter , Tim Chown , Fernando Gont , Sheng Jiang , Alexandre Petrescu , Andrew Yourtchenko | ||
Last updated | 2014-10-02 (latest revision 2014-10-01) | ||
Replaces | draft-carpenter-6man-why64 | ||
Stream | Internent Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
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 toShow full document text