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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 873421294D1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:50:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 D7bSWy4rsCsT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6025C12947A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 01:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.83] (unknown [181.165.116.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0235580132; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:50:05 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <323d2e72-df42-43fb-c850-0021453a401e@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 06:49:57 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3Du9U8UF98dhFSG6RBmTVdP5zqbpmYiraWejj_aLaY6A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/8k0Wv-TyWJt9VEZWe0sH2GD7b-w>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:50:11 -0000

On 03/02/2017 05:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org
> <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
> 
>     > Can you explain the difference between your reply and "we've been doing
>     > it for 20 years therefore it must be the right thing to do"?
>     >
>     > The latter is a a) not a technical argument, and b) not a useful
>     > argument if most of that operational knowledge was formed using IPv4.
>     > Given that for most of the 1990s IPv6 had not been designed, much less
>     > operationally deployed, I assume that you do indeed mean IPv4.
> 
>     Kindly stop throwing straw men into this discussion.  This is extremely
>     unhelpful and is not going to result in anything useful.
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase the question. I asked for use cases for longer-than-/64
> prefixes and listed the ones I have seen so far:

I could para-phrase you: because other prefixes longer than 64 are more
than enough in all realistic situations.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492