Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Randy,

On Feb 10, 2017 10:23 PM, "Randy Bush" <[e-mail]> wrote:

just to get down a level from meta-

> If the right answer is to allow packet modifications that break PMTUD
> and IPsec/AH, let's do it, but let's also say we're doing it.

obvious imiho

> I happen to think it's the wrong answer, but that's my problem.

i share it, but this is at the border of my expertise.  i have this
fantasy of pmtu actually working before i retire.  i realize it is
unrealistic.

> Leaving the text open to interpretation would make a mockery of
> promoting it to Standard.

agree.  but v6 specs seem to like wussing out and leaving the
opportunity to do wrong things.  i'll bet you a reuben at the corned
beef factory in chicago that the next try at the addressing architecture
still does not *unambiguously* state cidr except for slaac.


Do you mean the affinity for a 64 bit IID for addresses? If so, this has
been widely explored and documented in RFC7421. I agree with you that this
is hard to get out of given the state of implementations. I am not sure how
this draft (rfc2460bis) is related to that though.

Thanks
Suresh