IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 13 July 2017 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 54C401316E5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 xzygAtPCK7yr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0172F124BE8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r125so32637945vkf.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nNpq+2wR9l/iyzmtxLA3w893T/wlf4cbOa5OBMPuEi4=; b=askzp5yhxlnsuYwsqG7869C4M2xiqFOGy2WoooEhxMZtR6gCRAJMmVpzEhKGn2k2s4 tWR/0b8dlBJxS/gsKh+etHAb25qwy4ECz68nft2fgE5xyFZ3pcSVXZtDeRlCNH7m/ahv IOQ2sQdHALRfU+nYYsJuPE+cDvJnhwiMn0/0WoCGTGBqv4pg20K4AFdLjf1oiaaV0zpG bIde18jEIIuo06ADJ7lp5JBPHod6e9a1esyL8q08qVb3Di2VU3fyPp/vpV4lcf4Idyep fv2brLtY2Kz8MYvlrbTdxl0l7t0F27+9+DUAcxJakwgdnoDY7VDWerjj0t+2IF3/E3Zc HU/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nNpq+2wR9l/iyzmtxLA3w893T/wlf4cbOa5OBMPuEi4=; b=OLk23gzFK3W8UJxcLeRk5W96NWP6T+wE4IBgATELfHqpfGr3nmAut5MkJQ/GfhTqUO rsPAD8B9AIvMzNzX1f0D4EHzTuqlPKg9qDUbLPinnGwOTaLSiWoHpOMCFu2P69ip4s31 aotQewTlXkkTULfUM93jd9rck0+q/ItcpLPkB1W1WPoqOkCrhkSPzdgb8xdy7dzUdOuX M0VOjS+mD6Y5tgttBjpMD5i/5a9ow4TNyOlilivDZ7liR309X6nJ7nakPrPsetvLxvMe z/SW4O4tCBFc2jawp3u26hcMiPpTte2eBECS/taPdpme3tYhjjqx4D2BKovUO3inIMfC p9Xw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110VvaKablF0jLS+nWrqImZLzv/B6PHcJA0N2Vs3OWMTzHVGDp3O U5dMBfiLhjO5S6ebI2d4H88fdA4J8TzG
X-Received: by 10.31.181.1 with SMTP id e1mr2647934vkf.69.1499961762695; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.48.129 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <81b2c3d8-f646-f376-2243-270b2e9e3f3d@gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2ifGJaWJpWir8MXbSHcATL181VbA1MMtiQ=8Bzr2WmQw@mail.gmail.com> <81b2c3d8-f646-f376-2243-270b2e9e3f3d@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 01:02:21 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr27qyCWXg2fpsaBDAU2Pf2G40qp+GOHzzQ=09XDYNXxSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143a5700b5baa05543510c1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3lDccCra5TPdbdsktY4gzFkipoc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:02:45 -0000

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Based on past experience, it seems pretty clear to me that this situation
> > will not change until we get a problem statement that we agree on. Care
> to
> > write one up?
>
> Nick Hilliard just did:
>
> >> I would suggest that future protocols need to define what makes sense
> >> for them, and mandating a constant in advance isn't necessary or even
> >> appropriate.
>

I said "a problem statement we're likely to agree on".

"X isn't necessary or even appropriate" is a heavily subjective statement.
The other camp in this discussion finds X very much necessary and
appropriate, and the conversation never goes anywhere. You could substitute
"X" with "a fixed boundary" or "a variable boundary" and both sentences
read perfectly well.

An example of a problem statement that is be easier to agree on is "X
causes problems A, B, and C, which we would like to solve".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email