IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Fri, 13 January 2017 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 B7D3B129AC7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:31:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 kRV6u-HH1hD8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22d.google.com (mail-ua0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22d]) (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 0EBF112951F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:31:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 96so31307837uaq.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:31:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IqCSEjiUsSlu7HVzTqOlaxXEBuwS//Hpb4oi5j6mB9U=; b=oVoAPQGUNtf6GhuIn6S8cUXBOA0pTOF02yyqBWYUucR/GfdNC1tMQz/AfPWVhLZ2Zr W3YXjAFcKInSpnndtKf8yx2lpmhyIbMXRoYc+RJ6h6vuVUjDWmBMmdob/HTTu6bFIbP0 WxkZNQVb/xiWUBVaDm1GoBP8R7pov/r46TEMUoFcMN/4XaSeuqVidNO6N/pRA9WDX9gE kjPZZjQ6d0Ykn9vjHwlLqbt1PPeNKuy7X8vbsg4Wle6BKOGHaFC+M5dAlano6lX2M5GI bbwItz/VgkTdkE45bGD16uSJYrI0C46eRVeeHWULJYGFDZoEDkwkmY85fyjm6QZyRmh8 2oYw==
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=IqCSEjiUsSlu7HVzTqOlaxXEBuwS//Hpb4oi5j6mB9U=; b=c/lt9qEPPTkt1b4rlZK5drVjHO+G2YTAf4DITx5HZC6fA7WKSvzMfnUVS4XOpIgN94 wMTApnI9qbA5OnkZ+uJt4axwGH33ke0kRSlFfR1bTQ05PLYdwqgPVTvF37KHwTE2AMo3 hEG9LyJBLZiHY5+gfE7WUZHWjMPvUQdhNPYxufa8i5Lv0WzWCmVmcV9RpvT6xxa9l9iy FOaWgtaxT6X/zdClV7XXqiA2dxJHG3sEIcAMZ7HDiqFaeI6ANJfu8j1vGJdx+tzitrW1 gjvhjOh2eJ8itSq/Owje0+mNKW75Gdooue5K17qukxkw8hbqtRcOq1Mcyc/1ye3SsQvK LwIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIymqgbuQpxMZ+Yr0hi9B/1phT+7hkTwRDgZSdLk6L2R6UDL2p2idfW61aCqIYnAg/lDjDT6GivHeIsUBsJ
X-Received: by 10.159.48.203 with SMTP id k11mr9754814uab.42.1484292688018; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:31:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.49.77 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:31:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:31:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e34f469bbf40545f4d233"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YtYyO1g4LiSRipR9V45Xdg8EJCY>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@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, 13 Jan 2017 07:31:31 -0000

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> > So while Randy may well be right that we will move away from classful
> > eventually
>
> that is the line i was fed 15+ years ago.  i did not accept it then and
> i see no good reason to accept it now.
>

You might in another 15 years :)


> > we certainly never had it in the top 64 bite of the address
>
> bzzt!  you may want to look at rfc 2450.
>

Oh wow. Yes, I had forgotten. But that was not just classful addressing,
that would have been a much bigger change, with business implications as
well.


> > For now, I'd much prefer to just add a similar exception to the one we
> > have in 7421.
>
> you'll need to start an iana registry.  for p2p some use /127, some
> /126, and i have seen /120 on a multipoint mesh, worked fine.
>

I'm sure they worked fine. I don't know if there will be consensus to
change the documents to say that those lengths are in spec.


> we have had to fight massively with vendors to make it classless.
> please do not give them excuses to break things.
>

On a lot of hardware /65 - /126 is not very well-supported.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email