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

Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ghankins@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A22129964 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:45:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (384-bit key) header.from=ghankins@mindspring.com header.d=mindspring.com
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 QeOHxPpv9Rt8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1FCE1294F4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:45:14 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=QTfsr5jVIvK5i2pzSfcR0qN8kNrRaZ0OcXY9yRKGALHIyqaFn0XXVCl0V6c/iebL; h=X-Authentication-Warning:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [66.201.62.254] (helo=doom.twoguys.org) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <ghankins@mindspring.com>) id 1cj1kp-0006qC-8v; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 05:45:08 -0500
Received: from doom.twoguys.org (localhost.twoguys.org [127.0.0.1]) by doom.twoguys.org (8.14.4/8.12.11) with ESMTP id v21AiwLt015248; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 05:44:58 -0500
Received: (from ghankins@localhost) by doom.twoguys.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id v21AivdI015244; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 05:44:57 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: doom.twoguys.org: ghankins set sender to ghankins@mindspring.com using -f
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 05:44:57 -0500
From: Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Message-ID: <20170301104457.GA14420@nokia.com>
References: <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301072747.GA10187@nokia.com> <CAKD1Yr0YDwpk2R33znnj=_0xoFbw-fx3v75n_7ftqqSmUmz-Ng@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0YDwpk2R33znnj=_0xoFbw-fx3v75n_7ftqqSmUmz-Ng@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
X-ELNK-Trace: 176464c9115cf5b39c7f779228e2f6aeda0071232e20db4dbd5bef21beed6ab1afeda6acc077ee9b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 66.201.62.254
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2VdBdWn8EQgXzkQflYnJEpSRAr0>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 10:45:16 -0000

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:59:26PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>; wrote:
>> We can never change our
>> implementation to be compliant with the proposed text because of the
>> operational havoc it would create for our customers.  It's simply
>> infeasible
>> to impose these kind of addressing restrictions.
>
>The word "change" is incorrect here, because the standard that was current
>when Nokia wrote its implementation had pretty much exactly the same
>requirement. (The reason for that is that *all* past standards have
>contained this language except for RFC 1884, which specified /80, which
>won't work in the real world.)
>
>Could you reword your position to take into account that fact?

Call it whatever you want, the point again is that we have customers who have
deployed whatever addressing architecture meets their requirements, and we
can't force them to change it.  It's their network and their address space.

You are correct that other standards had the same requirement, which my
current and all of my former employer's* implementations also ignored for
the same reasons that have been mentioned.  This is a good opportunity
for the -bis revision to reflect the state of operational deployments that
have proven the assumptions in the original standard to be impractical.

Is anyone aware of any implementations that comply with this requirement?

Greg

* Riverstone, Force10, Brocade

--
Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>;