Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 24 February 2017 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 11FC11296E1; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 sfKFz_yduhG1; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5C5F1293E3; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 10171AA; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:25:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1487942719; bh=59aba0rlvWNo6J7egXyM1QvRcZ1fEG7kkQ0TPirLLzE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0wPkWnpHAA7KM7viAfsdosqBDu1wQ6Xkug4Tk4LP8SM2yK4ZP1Mq1JCG+kGYCij/E thBwiQejFSQ5yDjZTSqxkjuhkKNtAfnhzQrqyeK38TgcjpPfiU2GOZa79aDX++Vw2B yKbewg7D8XeiGIkoTe1tjUZnC1ImN4QZS7sKvQnU=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3B3A8; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:25:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:25:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
In-Reply-To: <A0EDE3AA-95AA-418B-A2B3-E9C8A74204A5@darou.fr>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1702241423100.15705@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark> <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com> <20170222144147.GC89584@hanna.meerval.net> <7960ff2d-359f-429c-6e82-ef592f90bf53@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1W+AVt4Dixo9epB5VazxBsVMD+mrshwaE=n7SuX6eGDw@mail.gmail.com> <5ce34926-6bde-6410-9b1e-3f61e48e9a1d@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yRTUPVTTicaTkA8fAFxHiHxdLG8ZzEHjCUDDzKg5zJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0xpjB4Z8CgSfW0W7y4F_wnXNS+Ws1UNBC-YnBDrPiTjQ@mail.gmail.com> <cf3496dc-47c6-6c6b-a42a-e0402789110a@si6networks.com> <CAN-Dau3bHXOaJGe1UaLdDht9=+WiD4SEu8qw9Sc915tOes5seA@mail.gmail.com> <A0EDE3AA-95AA-418B-A2B3-E9C8A74204A5@darou.fr>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7hBYBTXRy-cRvzeK9n9HgbXh65M>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@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, 24 Feb 2017 13:25:22 -0000

(posting this in the last call thread as well)

I just came back from PTO not reading IETF email for 5-6 weeks, and read
up on this thread.

I just want to state my opinion that whatever text we come up with should
reflect current operational reality, in that SLAAC A=1 only works on /64,
and that people use all kinds of subnet sizes when manually configuring
interfaces.

If current code doesn't treat 000::/3 in any special case, then documents
should reflect this.

Mandating /64 only for any IPv6 use case doesn't reflect reality as I see
it. I don't want to see A=1 /64 SLAAC requirement relaxed either.

I just want the -bis document to reflect what is currently in the field
and we know works. Nothing more, nothing less.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se