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

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Sat, 11 February 2017 06:26 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@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 E8D071293F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Ucm49_Wv-vO5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x232.google.com (mail-ua0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::232]) (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 966FE127735 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 96so42446295uaq.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MNvM1RAwHw+YnBzDJdQ8hXGnJik2CbsIhjIuxOy6cw8=; b=JSkeor5Zleaw9prie4JxBU1aBBINXjjLQwmBzwb+49t2f/NPfrgKWAwBoB8/4fstYB Kb6F2IFbBf1ncKZQV7vkiRH2ul3l5clSQV9MnkTQHKlTUhQA2KJMk1WDTBYJPUloauro ufuzOs/FFyydvQwBEePYnJNIwNsSHR0sLjm60ipCAKubux83pfC0zID8OLfyc+vDAFnq iXhB1CL+6XZ6EO+oQu+QDfEe96axQyxDHWhU5d3wiZT7Eb6qkgJLL+VOGZ2GvGpVgUEf cSskxg3DdLbcJ18CzwSgSizKPbsA+j5oAieo9fauOAgEqKKm0q6U0Yk2IzGz+tMJRCwD UdUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MNvM1RAwHw+YnBzDJdQ8hXGnJik2CbsIhjIuxOy6cw8=; b=UfQbbU3rgZ7/TsOVvGn52hdl93GTh4gLa/ImCRCmI6HaCLmEQnHmaGCs18VItTqsdk uQISsx73gt3CNvfXalPuIdCbRt2CK0ck/E9uQUKiozNAX2X0LLyE5lF1bixdf+zLs2ei Vj8Ye4tUl2VXJmiFOwNeQPJB8gQ24WMTer9PKk5xMOSSSgUXdcYkYFPynLz2M1aXQJGc 5ueXpH4rvAYfN7JZgvQSpNGNwPbgLaZBZmRytHbtxQ4M3DKDb32PSf/p2AgB4x3gJb9S pyXbQXNj4bVF1BLH/97umZ4DOQO4RZz8fUvBKmVkGf0++t/S18Q7oJy6bzUrjaMi/35N Vzrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lmwyhBns4UyMrpJ/WSt7v6iobYzR6jJYXSr2ixfKDy1z0rdQDiF0uekm+vQ3JsMVE23kNt248qBKKrpw==
X-Received: by 10.176.6.3 with SMTP id f3mr5584550uaf.37.1486794410554; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.49.14 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.103.49.14 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 22:26:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2o9y9pg0x.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148599296506.18647.12389618334616420462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <30725d25-9829-bf50-23c6-9e1b757e5cba@si6networks.com> <7ee506c2-4213-9396-186a-2b742c32f93b@gmail.com> <EA7E5B60-F136-47C6-949C-D123FB8DA70E@cisco.com> <00af01d27e11$fe539500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <60F01869-8B32-46D3-80B1-A140DF1DDA8A@employees.org> <8D401C5B-C3C3-4378-9DFA-BF4ACC8E9DAF@qti.qualcomm.com> <D2D907D5-84B4-43BB-9103-F87DA9F122EB@employees.org> <33DC7B74-D240-4FF2-A8FF-C9C5A66809EE@qti.qualcomm.com> <1179DE45-3971-44A1-9630-28F76D2D652D@employees.org> <2ea64b3c-d69d-6b6c-cb04-fe63727a8bee@si6networks.com> <23C46409-337C-468D-BCDC-34027BB56CAD@employees.org> <30715b9e-e9b7-320e-f9e2-fc3f64615d5c@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqcKu1XVQOPzcd+8b68WcQyjH9QmszaSvKWhT8SvHJ0ppg@mail.gmail.com> <m2y3xdpmjd.wl-randy@psg.com> <5333378B-0F8D-4966-82B2-DFF9639CEC7D@fugue.com> <3a180e40-936b-956b-9fc3-5ecdd4d905ee@gmail.com> <m2poippisc.wl-randy@psg.com> <13830253-67ab-cb26-4fa0-f40a24f1a5bc@gmail.com> <m2o9y9pg0x.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:26:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+MHpBo1kUeXHv9A_0x_vkpbRQTef+AqaBPpUSDLWne1S1eeLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt> (Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification) to Internet Standard
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c048440b1fce205483b4ca7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Fu9Rwaq22mPeLIv_Cy0GcOV6qs8>
Cc: IETF Discussion list <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: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:26:53 -0000

Hi Randy,

On Feb 10, 2017 10:23 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> 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