Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)

Fred Baker <> Tue, 06 November 2018 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1255E130DC3 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 03:28:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LUHh9gE8Mnd8 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 03:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D96221274D0 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 03:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q5-v6so5705048pgv.0 for <>; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:28:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Syuc0LUrDh3vU1yWOZZV9HPwImJupHa69YU4gXkXH+Q=; b=XVRpbOpf3PUc/g0ipUGFIk8F9LIhkLRZ+elq8JEcZuo3GRWHAnT0jM9IL7LU3LIlb5 XXG1eYwzI7opOgn10UiLGr7NtP3y+7PTwnQ9p60IX2Q/nqhUv+BusF0jmJBZHXsHoB0N kSmbE89ZMQpcVvexLcuH58eK/ADrIwkQcrfuzyIUs1/cQJ0qzi/5yUxlF/cEH0flY4th LTOgAmajflfooZY1i2CD2I1SN8EF1B8hAjVTlRDf985beAqLEBLRBPW/aEjLHdjBN1Uf fLguFRfyRw2kbe26FzpJZl87tr2U9cj/k1PWmGjKCw5CNa1qxkxTlaBr9O2bIlu+IN4Q gBiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Syuc0LUrDh3vU1yWOZZV9HPwImJupHa69YU4gXkXH+Q=; b=XcU9zAXahDMekePzlqJuHZVIBdDd3oupGtsBMYOJeOj8ucks7MeWtyQeZRj3TnaL17 IVIp8N/k0PhRl+pkN9PcFs3q6S0eACD4PxXS456DfmJCZTTCVx1Hq0zw5lve6stuFkUm 5/Ro7esgeHJUopUo6KWguUZsE5hADedSFLETPdqSrBWm8rQEHXbgSFyYMv1yu6DHGmIr zBwtlTeGgSi1kIA4GWE6GilcmsAKm/lMTSJg+zwmrJrXgvlEd6lH07zgjJ6wxu846xoh j0P5jKCQxVH/iZ+CnjEHM8U8owDIXA3H0eQPnkGTorJV/31KhQqj4NjzpvTMFJgUOzqS 271Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJoHW+fZiq3vIdnl7aJNpi051nzxQaVCDABcHHvunqRTg1AvyLm onivhTp6rJTbMad4b5Z39bw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cCRJzeU6RESIMHiYuTZ4Ib6V5bJfIqUwWndMQ9koleCS/2hBkZHYJjf4K95Y4yCH+C8/oV7Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:d40a:: with SMTP id a10mr22936711pgh.394.1541503690368; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:9df0:b919:995c:c72b? ([2001:67c:1232:144:9df0:b919:995c:c72b]) by with ESMTPSA id l2-v6sm44759266pgp.20.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Nov 2018 03:28:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1481F8BB-A9F9-42DB-AEB8-B73DCBB06068"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 18:28:04 +0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: RFC Errata System <>, Congxiao Bao <>,, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>, Dave Thaler <>, Xing Li <>,,,,
To: Christian Huitema <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 11:28:13 -0000

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 5:17 PM, Christian Huitema <>; wrote:
> On 11/6/2018 4:23 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> On second thought, the exact case is incorrect. I still think it's a silly restriction, but the private address in the case would not be placed into the Well-Known Prefix (and used as a destination address); it would be put into a /64 out of the subscriber's prefix (and used as a source address). So I can live without this change.
> Good.
> I think that the text should not be changed by an errata. The text is a
> fair rendering of our technical assessment at the time. We did not want
> to use the WKP to build ambiguous IPv6 addresses,

If the objective was to not create ambiguous addresses, why did we build a well-known prefix? A well-known prefix is probably the best possible way to create ambiguous addresses.

> and wanted to make
> sure that private IPv4 addresses will be mapped using private prefixes.
> It may or may not have been the right decision, but this is definitely
> what we intended.
> -- Christian Huitema

The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume...