IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 24 February 2017 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 EEECF12960E; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:49:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 5cpkf6mX42eb; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:49:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854701293EE; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:49:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E934D; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:49:16 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1487933354; bh=GmwOp+6KsJIGltn4ugf ocqrJmJJztHGCrt4RUtX6ris=; b=Q+qOv285OSsXAiLXtCYvieG1C4q938HXdPy hQmH116v6Fy8XIYQhqGYUJK4SJt40kdDpND4b+HxiUd9cfy1cmShJ3LEAgiiPTjc iwV38g1LXDbkb6yNpTk8tTQPjS4btB5bhtPTx0aT82IWi+6eJkKp067NkHQ8CGtq JKdkDKt4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id E0ak9ho2-clV; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:49:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2003:8:27:8600:9c7c:7f36:b525:f0d8] (unknown [IPv6:2003:8:27:8600:9c7c:7f36:b525:f0d8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23F434C; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:49:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <5B82833D-FFF8-45C1-A38D-F8CB81766BB7@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_709CA215-A7EE-4036-9179-3EB961F089DB"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:49:13 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20170224093308.GA2367@Space.Net>
To: Gert Döring <gert@space.net>
References: <58AF313D.3020905@foobar.org> <20170223190730.GL2367@Space.Net> <m2poi8s2cf.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaYuDJm4qROZ3bgDxamG9Xo8Ot88Ej5yHhO7Mj7q+77DCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0hc3DYK7tg0Vi0J5kEdd-CkD4D+cJ7LbaZw5WfNS=ZEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaaOWm+iQMOOGg00CXrhHtKZ0PxBswaJTUn6wf-EDq4KgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxqPzPweW6RQUfHfUB0ZktofuY8HxKz-LbiBNWg+2ZoBaw@mail.gmail.com> <20170224093308.GA2367@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/n3za1KbpZAu_UKfSjMzPPpGF7Gk>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@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, 24 Feb 2017 10:49:20 -0000

Hi,

> something like a /96 would have served the aspect "more machines than you can
> imagine per subnet" perfectly well.

Yeah, I wish we had chose something like that in the past as well :(

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email