Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 74BCE1293E1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:19:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 Hx8OE1csJWV4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22e.google.com (mail-ua0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2051293D8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u30so60966907uau.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:19:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=42rqpB2vAqG7c6XpiQpAHigzT3TqjcvxUF7kQWZh1ak=; b=TAO/GwS9t/XVqcvFNQAQratBPNlNGQTCy5I1/y/xh3kbYbTZvAxc7LxNbLIPS7TbUZ Jv6R7jjymZseMueQQNPnQxOH1fYitT545m4OndIZbMQcoRAZjrlTb9obdr/3bc5TkWsD FRgBZQ185VNRjSAp/jo/Wpw90xEZD2yxV7sehowLbUNVc1CxrgB01r+7NejPRJVD9TfB IbDfu2pgJX4Npw10yOs7dBfIt+Ix8bLni05FxKhd7Z4gENDFmhwnBDRHMHKKCOsVFMn4 lvH50X8dJ7cXMzVS3QzcyHjvJtUoi8499zSHhi54VUQc80uSr6DiTt6ILarHnpI73xgy MTfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=42rqpB2vAqG7c6XpiQpAHigzT3TqjcvxUF7kQWZh1ak=; b=Cny3+3jrPpwsla66iChJIrRa4E/ZPd8QoTFMZmJMkQXnlFMAfzYims9RygeJiF76k4 OQSoWC4nbjRQGDA5YFr0lwJn7mvIsahcV4wOt/LfPrxRdDPuv4DHCkQxSyTR6wWbYPS4 gp4ewWY4DCYwv13/y1/jdncDF+eMHJFvG4SuZmSNexIjBgtxX6CY+k8fo51pQYgJd0t9 nngCkGyu6imsJm7c2RVFbd/7GP7/0aE/f91EoA6Ta4k3ENpUKOShP+Yg97NaiZ8BBMbW TgMBBNlT1f4lG5F69vlHy9itkd2pB2B03itPxobBKZMkL2P2uOgtd/P/BPdNBX9EKi+Z llbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nVdy+tamQyNL0Mjde621fwhEPy9bLYeZet7guTF4rjGRm4t5aFVownCkL2hoUEOy/kLRbmuBZwgq5NCGu1
X-Received: by 10.31.170.15 with SMTP id t15mr7065299vke.6.1488856742039; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 19:19:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:18:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau2AEVAo1TCWDLTOzibRBtTtXoWdL2a0ishm_pQ3T4bWAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau3BOVo3UhyGEdxKR-YgqpLqJVxV7uswCCXFsaQoKRaKHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2AEVAo1TCWDLTOzibRBtTtXoWdL2a0ishm_pQ3T4bWAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 12:18:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1tZ6kbnBktUGkycee=vzmfY4ynO1Vd4HzbFWgOUpDp2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114322503b9dc3054a1b79a8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Dm6zCvCCflDNNcd-oGpDpAaDAsY>
Cc: 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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 03:19:04 -0000

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:05 AM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>; wrote:
>
> Instead, I would suggest another approach: see what the problems with 4291
>> are, *write them down*, and only then write a document explaining what
>> should be changed and why.
>>
>
> The list of 7 points are the problems that many see with 4291bis, maybe
> overly summarized, but they are there.
>

Well, but what you provided is an alternative solution, not a problem
statement. Example of a problem statement would be, "RFC 4291 does not
allow non-64-bit IID lengths. However, assigning smaller prefix lengths is
necessary because [...]".

I can't help fill in the [...] because I personally don't see what you can
do with a /113 that you can't do with a /64 (other than conserve addresses,
which has always been a non-goal), but there seem to be several
participants who do see a problem. What I'm saying is that if we want to
change the standard, the people who see a problem with it should articulate
that problem in a way that it's possible to find a solution using informed
and documented engineering trade-offs rather than opinions.