Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt

Mark Smith <> Thu, 23 February 2017 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17DF12A2B8 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:29:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GG8jUURp7DlJ for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E77F12A2C6 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g30so1492891uac.3 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XzkeVQEzHu3T8AGhZv47xb2uTO7HDaBcYbBjPO48vSQ=; b=GD4FTRxxZfhxHviEGDyS/7v4C6weq5VYpbIht82sT1T7p5m/X9Fma6Lm8wkDXjSYki 5YUNY5twEz7OXi+ot/xLryfXKigSDQPuC+asHd4e90rkhoEZ4dvJL0YaX+L+NRQLUrp+ F/JEsjUic28u6xWkaaIzlYK3OwqUXJ8dkSpGVC8dxDJ556xvtBm7WBfx/QaMZrRrpcJG jTOuQXkVAN5oymao7WW4Dz75ntYpfXs6Gvv80IRys5N2DRqGs3g6u/lrEFiovWnJB5fE o/cMDJXde9/AH3ALRYaMRkAvoXZZwgfq2+gy0oCmUmzAHVSJZeJqueB917Leuef8sw1w Kv6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XzkeVQEzHu3T8AGhZv47xb2uTO7HDaBcYbBjPO48vSQ=; b=MZYQDFL0ykKLPq5kOt3tbW2qkWsdZ+gW5b7Xhetzc1v/LD0CpT7LfF5qPVuZ1W5jW2 pwjk3IGeBCqCogJHE3zxuKRv1Lm2iTFwwb0iJivNjPxu7csW91k6NudQwIYoLKf5BinS KI651Pdg2cRflxycq4OSSnA6nJSEv5NfmyYQ6L00UOVJqa2FGfL3UivdMmtXCdCms9XU 0XTxZsegXeeodFnn/lt5WFysQDUTHLyG8+XlukiUzbDofC3mMCrFL2x3ZOpdLnIhhdVg 15fl/QoKyQkVi4EjauvPz8QG0HnFUbuBbmAQ52MIUhXcwyYGRgw9cotB5Ncf5vTpUnjS 5Vqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lstp1PA/ll8EXd3V/lkVM+Yz6VyB87YrotQXJF6QwcKus4e2KnJC2QH3Y6seCiMxjANgQrk2Atay6i0A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r22mr10822832uae.18.1487881737195; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:28:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:28:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:28:26 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Peter Hessler <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:29:10 -0000

On 24 Feb. 2017 06:45, "Brian E Carpenter" <> wrote:

On 24/02/2017 03:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <> wrote:
>> As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
>> you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
>> I strongly oppose this draft.
> Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.

> Nonsense. The exactly correct time to object is when a document is being
Last Called for Internet Standard status. Until this point in time, IPv6
has only been a Proposed Standard.

> Actually it has been very educational for me - not in my understanding
of how IPv6 works, but in showing how badly this particular aspect has been
documented for the last 20 years. Mainly, we've had too many words in the
addressing architecture. I expect the next version to have fewer words
on this topic.

I think another issue is that people with an IPv4 only background may
expect that IPv6 is just IPv4 with bigger addresses. They then find
many other new things, and, as they're not aware that many if not all
of these things were used and deployed in other layer 3 protocols such
as IPX, CLNS and Appletalk, think there is too much change and too
many untested capabilities.

IPv4 was primarily designed and developed in the 1970s. Protocols like
XNS/IPX/CLNS and Appletalk were designed and widely deployed in the
1980s and 1990s (e.g., Appletalk v1 in 1985). IPv6 was designed in the
mid 1990s, and I think it has taken ideas from all of these ancestor
and popular at the time protocols. I think about the only thing that
is really new in IPv6 is the idea of using different multicast groups
based on portions of the IID for neighbor discovery messages - even
then Appletalk uses multicast for that function, however it was just a
single group.

So perhaps one of the barriers we're pushing up against is the
perception that there look to be far to many new things in IPv6 (i.e.,
it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses), even though they're only
really new if your reference is just IPv4.


>    Brian

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: