From: Arti Zirk <arti.zirk@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>,
"Roman Mamedov" <rm@romanrm.net>
Cc: Reid Rankin <reidrankin@gmail.com>,
ch@ntrv.dk, WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Standardized IPv6 ULA from PublicKey
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 20:01:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <910f09eb8b67bef5cc55114fe1b0bd6297ea2ec4.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfk6gjax.fsf@toke.dk>
On E, 2020-06-29 at 14:15 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> In general I'd say that deviating from the RFC needs a good reason.
> Expanding the number of bits we can use for the identifier may be a
> good reason to expand the LL interface ID width (although I'm not
> actually too worried about collisions even if we only use 64 bits).
Few more counter arguments against expanding identifier length:
1. There is a rejected errata 4406 that wants to do this
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4406
2. FreeBSD and probably other *BSD/macOS use those unused 56 bits to
store the link scope_id. And support nonstandard fe80:1::30/64 notation
instead of fe80::30%1/64 to specify the scope.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5891805/2303328
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/76f9308e3e2b80e95630efcdd994f3c133806bf4/share/doc/IPv6/IMPLEMENTATION#L427
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/e9a39e0c3c22543812afd4de74d1d0ad6782100b/sys/netinet6/scope6.c#L363
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-29 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-04 16:52 Lonnie Abelbeck
2017-12-04 17:14 ` Aaron Jones
2017-12-05 2:53 ` Luis Ressel
2017-12-05 3:31 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-24 15:37 ` Florian Klink
2020-06-24 17:08 ` Chriztoffer Hansen
2020-06-24 17:30 ` JuniorJPDJ
2020-06-27 21:43 ` Reid Rankin
2020-06-28 10:15 ` Arti Zirk
2020-06-28 15:19 ` Derrick Lyndon Pallas
2020-06-29 10:22 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-06-29 10:31 ` Roman Mamedov
2020-06-29 10:52 ` Justin Kilpatrick
2020-06-29 11:03 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-06-29 11:38 ` Roman Mamedov
2020-06-29 12:15 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-06-29 17:01 ` Arti Zirk [this message]
2020-06-29 18:01 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-29 19:58 ` Reid Rankin
2020-06-30 1:24 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-06-30 8:01 ` Reid Rankin
2020-06-29 18:49 ` Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=910f09eb8b67bef5cc55114fe1b0bd6297ea2ec4.camel@gmail.com \
--to=arti.zirk@gmail.com \
--cc=ch@ntrv.dk \
--cc=reidrankin@gmail.com \
--cc=rm@romanrm.net \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).