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

Mark Smith <> Thu, 23 February 2017 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A80212A2E5 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:02:25 -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 b3XgN65mi7fs for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618F112A2DE for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g30so2029843uac.3 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:02:24 -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=fJN5zeADRrD7sW0lGtKr0K6IzjlciYgNv1Esdv9TQ1s=; b=lvjf3AGtFrsOgIFWSC/uYbRUqnWrgHrG8wydOoITVfqNEs+PtCXM+57hkCUy/yTAi7 MWSKYBULUxPgpdXqSLlsmPqvng+H+Gt/Jddrpto/XnF80bnVSgcAnnYkx4CvYWFggkHu 0nn3mIYBl8rNjsjqWENWwlXV+xT6lf9Bv7jenXtBVO0WGUtsmbj2D1mGus/kJf8o4DQL O7WZO/d+Tj7XEmh2t8KSBnkClyYfIh0Edw0kyXYtB1pWUFQTDMjFlMTsTrEg57c320Za 3K0McacZas0TQKgWmsBWUBlCVGqpCGDwTKOCEOuWY1XbXqJkQ9h74G83OzdBfm1FUEWZ eJMQ==
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=fJN5zeADRrD7sW0lGtKr0K6IzjlciYgNv1Esdv9TQ1s=; b=E0W8Iw8rYoxkJwJkqa/usZ2ZVC4V3il43Md/qlaauJwa5yWkqZL3wwCCd0P+f7uoid Xajt3959gDEAwZuzFNzsRtiCChIdvKwUd757Aff9j9oO8+UwHkRG5bDgfx58fISukyWq Ip//8LBNcARvJReXA7vLjmGfZw2Z6qGDyG0E0qh+HRE9OVWu665ghIBTtylviLfWm6Ra q61F2fpx9qjpU9J2br36e2iPxqY7V/dXka6yPx0UnE/jDfL6nrTkXzFzgZJsszkMc6vQ iplwtNPO8j3Oj7mCSAqFd/+LyFlCTZ3xq4nGx2M9AkPL7VuVJtD6eQ3cGWL9TURpVkZX jqKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lbTrCdy5iJBDzctON6jvmJCAkS2hapxr0oaYAkTBhEqRuzMypoqmH7H7nLxhEC6MXBtlb/P/8K4qNG0g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 53mr15633053uai.97.1487883743471; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:02:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:01:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Mark Smith <>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:01:53 +1100
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Job Snijders <>
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 21:02:25 -0000

What do you know about IPX?

On 24 February 2017 at 07:44, Job Snijders <> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 07:28:26AM +1100, Mark Smith wrote:
>> 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.
> This is called a "straw man argument". You construct this nonsensical
> non-existent "IPv4 only person" and then making ridiculous assertions
> about this "ignorant ipv4 person".
> This type of argument is often used in polemical debate, particularly in
> arguments about highly charged emotional issues, where the defeat of
> "ipv4 people" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding
> both sides of the issue.
>> 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.
> Thank you for this lesson in history, but I assure you that many of us
> are intimately familiar with IPv6.
>> 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.
> Can you please tone down the fanboyism a bit? Not only are you repeating
> yourself, but in repeating the IPv6 evangelism you are not contributing
> anything of substance to this technical dialogue.
> The topic of discussion is not whether IPv6 differs from IPv4 or how it
> differs from IPv6. Strictly speaking IPv4 has _nothing_ to do with this
> discussion.
> Kind regards,
> Job