IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 1AA3C129495 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:55:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 EroNcgT37jf0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6298E12959B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1GCtBw8031551 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:11 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B494E2048A4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2110204857 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1GCtBJA030765 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:11 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <148599306190.18700.14784486605754128729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau0kDiSNXsyq9-xEdS5mzLt-K+MYHqoV8aC8jDVREw8OPQ@mail.gmail.com> <8e5c950a-0957-4323-670f-f3d07f40b4df@gmail.com> <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6026d226-cdd1-e801-4bfa-5892a9c6e202@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:54:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wISg6amhlFWzWE7wqpDbF4QrnM8>
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, 16 Feb 2017 12:55:16 -0000


Le 15/02/2017 à 02:31, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 15/02/2017 14:26, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:06 AM, <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would
>>> claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Of course. The point is only that it's a parameter in the design of SLAAC,
> whose value is set by the address architecture.

Can there be another IPv6 Architecture?

Alex

>
>    Brian
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email