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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 01 March 2017 10:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 5A349129951 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:09:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 hgwCekXrZiAU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC171294A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C476E6065; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:09:27 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170301.110927.104116623.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: lorenzo@google.com
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/A9mabwPJBl3mimPlpzRjG4YUDlI>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, jhw@google.com
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 10:09:29 -0000

> >> IMO the important question is not "should an OS refuse to configure a /65
> >> when manually configuring an address". I think the much more important
> >> questions are, "can the OS assume that it can use the full 64 bits to form
> >> an IID", and "will this link ever run out of IPv6 addresses". The answers
> >> to those should be yes and no.
> >>
> >
> > I don't disagree with your answers, and you may not think the manual
> > config question is important, but others seem too.
> 
> FWIW I wouldn't oppose an exception for manually-configured addresses on
> routers.

But you would oppose it for hosts? Then I don't think we're any
further.

Steinar Haug, AS2116