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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 03 March 2017 11:18 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 BBAEF1294B0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:18:52 -0800 (PST)
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 GuVo0AUZQFyI for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725C21294AD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2017 11:18:51 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3372D788D; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:18:50 -0800 (PST)
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=hLWUKFijLzGvStlwrLOs7fFZgKM=; b= FSGao3NRgX3M2J34o3m77mn3L2YUZZNI8LcQaatoRevnlMUq9069uM76FtTwm1tg GCksDnckA/4MxdflW+kGE9JbWsjW61hbziRR0uSLVYoGiiF/ZbfTbrnYrBISJtWT ETfkTELv1mNfFkEdhjaDIFtQqllxHMfKFRZbPn8SIw0=
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=FPSUNjnXudue7a0aJBYmVyJ FPqmRqpG0T45Ayn6ReOYs5fD5i5xEMT8L6lY0F1ZcFWR3V+cDl0jhyxUUZ0jEdAL seJXmdWTZj5iAdUyClPYEPgmYN5K4eAybMEdCWUC7+HgJdNRcfiM8l49mvDcxVK4 evCE2doetMNSrNwu6dkE=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.49]) (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 AEA61D788A; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 03:18:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2AD9380A51; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:18:48 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <B99A2FEF-E883-4B7F-A01B-D151B3934255@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B838B612-6ED6-427D-B15D-E8E7FA67A711"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:18:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20170303102734.GW1024@Vurt.local>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
References: <3fba77e0-d7ff-802e-019b-6fe152eaee67@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAKD1Yr0qwwfH2a2ND7Va7tHigVTQ=iWkEwicxhTYpjuYMJnARg@mail.gmail.com> <58B6A02E.50501@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3j88RP=Hc3Xa-cMwOUZ1Td1uej0AHsNEKoAchoCe-ghQ@mail.gmail.com> <58B74D22.5010104@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3Du9U8UF98dhFSG6RBmTVdP5zqbpmYiraWejj_aLaY6A@mail.gmail.com> <58B89AD3.3000806@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3yXsntsJXR2xSU9P2bQibXPhH_XAMQkktX0_hM=1xQHw@mail.gmail.com> <20170303102734.GW1024@Vurt.local>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7dlKrDeNlr7srhAJ9vg4fIW2DkM>
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:18:53 -0000

Job,

[...]

> It is upsetting that this information needs to be repeated over and over
> again. Why are you not listening? The last decennia has already proven
> that flexibility is a necessity to operate the networks.

of course. at the same time please remember that there is significant distrust towards the operators.
if we as the users gave in now, will you turn around and charge me by the address tomorrow?

as have been mentioned before the hard part is to find text that is clear on the policy, allows for new innovations and use of ILNP, /64 to the host, NPT66, but also recognises that I can configure /128s, or that I on my laptop split a /64 into /80s for each of my VMs...

Cheers,
Ole