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

Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Sun, 26 February 2017 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
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 08268129551 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:29:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JabXavCfRM67 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:29:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp37.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.204.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B407129556 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [114.254.44.112]) by app2 (Coremail) with SMTP id C8xvpgCHjYk_IbJY82zsAQ--.1619S2; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:28:47 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <58B2213F.6030604@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:28:47 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <304f89c9ec7c4931b3d854ff1d24f912@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <304f89c9ec7c4931b3d854ff1d24f912@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010600000206000904000303"
X-CM-TRANSID: C8xvpgCHjYk_IbJY82zsAQ--.1619S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoW7Jr17Gry3Kry3XFy5Zw17GFg_yoWkWFX_WF yxG3W5Jr1DJr1Dta1Utr45JrnrXr4jgr1UJF1DJr4DJw13CFn8Jr1jkr4DZryUXrW5Jr1D Gr1UJr1jyr17JjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUbnAYjsxI4VW3JwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVWx JwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26F4j6r4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr 1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVAqjxCE14ACF2xKxwAv7VC0I7IYx2IY 67AKxVWUXVWUAwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y4 8IcVAKI48JMx8GjcxK6IxK0xIIj40E5I8CrwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwC20s026c02F40E 14v26r106r1rMI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jrv_JF1lIx kGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAF wI0_Gr0_Cr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6Fyj6rWUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJV W8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvj7UU6GU UUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9DCPnf50a0WHu4ske9Q_ufcg4Uw>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:29:11 -0000

Manfredi, Albert E 写道:
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt
>
>   
>> I know there are operating systems with billions of units in the field
>> today that do exactly this because RFC 4291 and its predecessors have for
>> years given them clear license to do so, and I don’t want to see the
>> publication of I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis as RFC come to remove this license
>> as a side effect of promoting IPv6 to full Standard category.
>>     
>
> But this is exactly why RFC 4291-bis has to get this right. The unicast address space 2000::/3 is the only one that should be so constrained. We need to nip this problem in the bud.
>
> OSs can be updated, when it becomes necessary.
>
>   
>> You want to remove that license?
>>     
>
> Remove that misinterpretation as a GENERAL rule for IPv6? Yes. Prefixes can be of any length, in general, in IPv6.
>   

+1, xing

> Bert
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>