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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 28 March 2017 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 6C3EB1297CB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 DVGjUG4Bgz7l for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 575601200F1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v2S1GS6F024494; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:16:28 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C330E201917; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:16:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B687220110A; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:16:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [132.166.84.16] ([132.166.84.16]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v2S1GRhx008998; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:16:28 +0200
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1vJV5O_Ythp6THkAu4-YZXV82Upny1V+ybbjCVZQQX=A@mail.gmail.com> <27cce319-18ac-5c0e-3497-af92344f0062@gmail.com> <de4988be-6031-08d9-84ce-21c3fa4f9bc9@gmail.com> <98401ef7-cf41-b4a0-4d11-a7d840181bd0@gmail.com> <1047f5fc-ae40-be52-6bab-27f31fe5e045@gmail.com> <9a94feac-8d59-b153-d41c-04fc371e4db4@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z7v4gDk91b6Of-1sczV88m3B9kzn0MeJU_VBJ416k6Ww@mail.gmail.com> <ae35b45a-0398-840f-fc0d-1f64dd2fcc58@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdZezDRti5LqCKnmU9QkwwhdejP22gXwk3wLKiS0mhx+Q@mail.gmail.com> <dfc8570d-fff0-39fe-a53f-db2c81c0ec8f@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdHv0vw_kFFBZ2NE98t0nhkCR5rz8f=UOpwmvqtVjNqhg@mail.gmail.com> <d7c50847-47b4-48a7-d2c4-7b207898c84b@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdzZ6VBCN_+FvX6Np=21PuuPCFX3mOuZ6MVQd=zj7aE5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfD_wkSgR1XBWSFXeVxZ+Qx+ai2qKoND89NW__m6yG2YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fdf728eb-90f5-facd-3cbe-5f3ba8cac0d1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 20:16:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqfD_wkSgR1XBWSFXeVxZ+Qx+ai2qKoND89NW__m6yG2YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DGFuN6UKB4i6GsGLa24BjCv-9U0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:16:31 -0000

Le 27/03/2017 à 19:53, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:50 PM <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>; wrote:
>
>>>> fe81::/10 is just an "abnormal" form of fe80::/10,
>>>
>>> Err, I dont think fe81::/10 is an abnormal LL.  I think fe81::/10,
>>> fe82::/10, ... febf::/10 are all normal forms of LL.
>>
>> By abnormal I meant setting the tenth bit is meaningless
>
> Oops, it should be "the 16th bit".  Sorry for the noise.

Well, I agree setting the 16th bit can be meaningless, because it is 
beyond the first hextet.

fe80:1::/10 is too long, because that "1" is way beyond the 10th bit.

But fe81::/10 is not meaningless.

fe80::/10 is not more meaningful than fe81::/10.

Actually one can wonder why RFC writers decided to write fe80::/10 when 
they could have written fe81::/10 equaly well.  Or even fe90::/10 or 
febf::/10.  All these designate the same 10bits - the mask 1111 1110 10.

Alex

>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
>