IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

otroan@employees.org Wed, 14 June 2017 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 7B3BF129B4F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 qXbYeR1zTeZZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EC7129B64 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jun 2017 09:52:30 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1520D788D; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=j/5DkBfCcK//BizBb+3bLANgqIk=; b= Cg/yhIXE4qmU6hP5K7MWlZAuLkvQWMns4tvO+U7OmgwcMmyZe4yPdvR6aKCKZCHk 4XbQq+PjXu0nuSBj7dRjfkHWvfw18ykAvXWi7MkbWet+Iu0sUGR2upwC3yAbOV9R Rw0EvIfMNzX6Oe5cCupGXiSczU9+VXDrBIJkB+jlF8Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=B5BG0+Dj0d1+GBNBqjRmVxC 87J24RCnA4STQwm1TMpdfPpUJDFuIubmMJkH9lA2E/l2Y0RcOmvu4zzCmcnUp4Ry D43xzeOspM6F3pO/umKNwTTBdZ7ZCvcllxbPwIF6iKM1j4VhztcVFxoL6rU/J9ZY WhHnTOEEQ8j+mFKg8764=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E88FD788B; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 02:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F57D3EB201; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:52:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <A7502902-245B-499B-916B-28630CD5A824@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2E0975A-FB24-40D0-941D-0F9DC34316BB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:52:27 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170614094034.GC30896@gir.theapt.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
References: <E02C4C99-155A-4358-A845-F00F8BB071C1@employees.org> <b3ca5271-21b1-ab33-2dff-82735ebe9128@gmail.com> <235143da452c4ff4aec39a26ba918e7e@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1489a50a-2616-f9ac-4109-16c595e15f90@gmail.com> <FA3032F9-F44B-45B4-9AFF-01EBC84F1448@employees.org> <b1c5c13d-ef69-ef30-546c-9178a2655caf@si6networks.com> <391c730c-fa75-7596-bb6b-383ea6583131@gmail.com> <0b57c999-b5df-8a44-e3fd-55cee628f3f3@si6networks.com> <20170614092327.GB30896@gir.theapt.org> <E61AFFF1-0354-41EE-8E11-50433B26BAF7@employees.org> <20170614094034.GC30896@gir.theapt.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4SVTtx3UVgE3S7FJoFVeKE3-Bos>
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:52:39 -0000

Peter,

> leaving a RECOMMENDED for /64 subnets is fine.  forcing it to be a MUST
> is not fine to me.  While the arguments in favour of /64 subnets are
> valid, there are many differently valid reasons to have non-/64 subnets,
> as mentioned many times in this (and other recent) threads.

Which arguments matter to you?
What _problem_ does changing the 64 bit boundary solve for _you_?

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email