IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Thu, 23 February 2017 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 F24E0129B0F; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:14:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rwLrawZw8dUh; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40A4A1299E3; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:14:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.foobar.org (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1NMEovl018459 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:14:51 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.foobar.org
Message-ID: <58AF5ED9.7060006@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:14:49 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.10 (Macintosh/20170123)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org> <20170223190730.GL2367@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20170223190730.GL2367@Space.Net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hBZSikg_8y2kACu59WnHH2YrILk>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:14:55 -0000

Gert Doering wrote:
> Unless I'm totally mistaken this wording has been in "the appropriate
> RFC" (4291?) since the beginning of time.

it has, but it was updated over the years by several other drafts which
proposed the use of other appropriate interface netmasks, including e.g.
rfcs 6164 and 7608.  The importance of 7608 is that netmasks longer than
/64 have no relevance unless there are interface netmasks longer than /64.

> But since nobody seemed to care for the last 14 years (3513 is 
> standard track, published April 2003), why should people or vendors
> bother to follow RFC mandates now...?

If the IETF mandates something that's both unenforceable and which will
cause breakage if implemented, this makes the IETF look rather foolish.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email