IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 13 January 2017 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 64908129AB7; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:03:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 7EAdrCYj8mY4; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 34388129AAC; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cRvtD-0003Ii-ME; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:03:08 +0000
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:03:05 +0900
Message-ID: <m2mvevfnme.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
In-Reply-To: <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.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>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iRckiiL3Mdz8ZOGBHtXObZteuM4>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@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, 13 Jan 2017 07:03:11 -0000

>> and then next year we will go through another draft and have another
>> exception.  just get rid of classful addressing.  we went through
>> this in the '90s.
> 
> The problem is (and why we wrote 7421) is that stuff breaks with
> subnet prefixes longer than 64, *except* for the point-to-point case
> covered by 6164. Yes, I see the problem in enshrining this but I think
> we face signifcant issues if we do otherwise.
> 
> What we could conceivably say is that /64 is mandatory except for
> links where SLAAC will never be used.

i have no problem with this.  i use slaac in environments where ip
assignment is unimportant and there is only one exit, such as my home
networks.  fwiw, in racks, i use static addressing for ipv6 because
dhcpv6 is broken.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email