Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
draft-ietf-6man-why64-07

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (6man WG)
Last updated 2014-10-30 (latest revision 2014-10-19)
Replaces draft-carpenter-6man-why64
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats pdf 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 Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
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 23, 2015                             Univ. of Southampton
                                                                 F. Gont
                                                  SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH
                                                                S. Jiang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                             A. Petrescu
                                                               CEA, LIST
                                                          A. Yourtchenko
                                                                   cisco
                                                        October 20, 2014

           Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
                        draft-ietf-6man-why64-07

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 23, 2015.

Carpenter, et al.        Expires April 23, 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.4.  Implementation and deployment issues  . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.5.  Privacy issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
Show full document text