IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D2B129D50; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:41:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WXyWN4MwBqrA; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C459129D51; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n21so8609286qta.1; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:41:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=iy9/NLfT2inTbMQsVJPcTux3WMus8X+6dLgtbVXSxWE=; b=H+kqfvbr6GDnNUkQZ19rFi9xa8zsRfUshNbR1tyiLZtuI/cCI+qJ95steDULY1dgze KGYFJUp8aIms6ID77V8cSW89lrDZ0fz4vksTxQ4q917yCntm8kIZtQ8jYTsYhO57EmF/ a6QRtdEQdNu4zEieGfUZBNcAjANBHEoI05ND7C9cJICHfbsvGVCkgsAOVfkRQg+6Tir8 fyeSE3I1+wIXvNz22rH4DlqhJs0gH6naZOnzzfaC6M82ehnd9ptpXbVYo32lPEANSZvx uoaSFmlfNoopAp4IXU8DSGxb4so2EMyuSEb/RSEn6s6DQ1Sz6DOQjcgotLw9+2FS1mRq 6wNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iy9/NLfT2inTbMQsVJPcTux3WMus8X+6dLgtbVXSxWE=; b=dLgd2fx/I37yl7yEiuKCyUFmq5sj33P/HgLUjXWqQ3KnM60zbAwt8A06GLW366LX7K 3CwW8o/8KXSoekO3EuT4eYF3E1aEARwDxsb5FnE1hT4tWmUSvp2WXyTPh0Aj7Sm8oLgE BHoKG91d9k9aABXUu1kWg5EBTOERnTlybB3lOOY1L23FfYRlzMlB5INJH/fMNNN1ZvFy fPJaxq1elYjcyMkK3h1m6esLHq0ubCsXyLGqmZH2y92+z9xlJvElgoZexARVZNbZthEt B/LBqF4mWPe+o4jmzFgIjbPCz0qUj9XhxK1kKCq5vfOipHxz5an1CVSGV9fYIJcBVuIs b3gA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39njug8+NRhet417fQfWr5tk48/9jfXzfCj7p6kwMMeHRnlFa5Dj9fCzZMEz5+MsGaiFLBvJZNP42S0lXA==
X-Received: by 10.200.54.13 with SMTP id m13mr544368qtb.214.1487907703625; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:41:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:41:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0hc3DYK7tg0Vi0J5kEdd-CkD4D+cJ7LbaZw5WfNS=ZEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org> <20170223190730.GL2367@Space.Net> <m2poi8s2cf.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaYuDJm4qROZ3bgDxamG9Xo8Ot88Ej5yHhO7Mj7q+77DCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0hc3DYK7tg0Vi0J5kEdd-CkD4D+cJ7LbaZw5WfNS=ZEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:41:43 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: OLTLickTXSE0eqfxvTFWx0d-Fe8
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaOWm+iQMOOGg00CXrhHtKZ0PxBswaJTUn6wf-EDq4KgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1139f8ea2221b605493e82fe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3uP-PhBuZigxh91UdkItuENkkSs>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:41:47 -0000

gosh people are being literal today :)

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may
>> be
>> > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting."
>>
>> Nothing in the past really matters here, what matters is: "Is the bis
>> draft all set, did we fix all the things which must be fixed before this
>> draft becomes a real 'standard'?"
>>
>
> I don't think you can say nothing in the past matters here. We know that
> there have been host implementations that relied on this guarantee, and we
> have to consider that if we change the standard, those implementations will
> become non-compliant.
>

I don't think the proposed (now 160+ messages back) text really says: "FREE
FOR ALL< NO LIMITS!!! WEEE!" it says: "Hey, if you want to use /64 because
the application you are being placed into requires it (slac, blah and blah
and ilnp and blah - see rfc7k) then do that, else any other prefix length
works"

how's that not 'ok' for host folks? "Hi, my host is going to be in a slaac
world.. so /64 it is!"

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email