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

james woodyatt <> Thu, 23 February 2017 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06A1129B35 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4R0-m5oDr2m for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7856129B32 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 1so1654374pgi.1 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9/BpYTS/JqsjkaPEHjd0z8B5oYrqhonu8vGe8+Gh0FE=; b=hK1VZH7JgJZHncIJUlYQOv4MzJl0qp5IS00qZIOoBqswNbY+AouhxKq2EAdpGywl9a Lt8NK/bFUC63K7z9XV2BOVYrnYiSMCEEYMqTpK3hFUnKL/4GZMg8TVxqdkg/j3IgYZNQ CnGNIW4hKv2b1omGrwsxrpDF4R8O5VtXLSiLzHxWXd+6SGPkYJaqP1aYBoHt6U/9jwT4 atWjFY58u0DhaiL9dhl1lSogLhcDlb5AxEGHjCqxylJ089xe3bt6WvEeXQ+ePUQl33Ja UgIRahgx7H6tzr1Pq9MV4fy9AMytgjMNcQ11lsJLWYtKTwIthGLRSKIMrA8ZVhhx6lkr owiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9/BpYTS/JqsjkaPEHjd0z8B5oYrqhonu8vGe8+Gh0FE=; b=Q2RBcC90uRshYoc6egfUrBI78X4Ugg1Ry6PQYF7P7pwM7grMT/IQ/Yxpr8w0Qe7MJF pZWbon6MVkWe64vQevG9RgXSWnzH61xWZdOud+CPhmRpLf4oZkDqnqrJ8b+qaUuvrai1 TYG5DbX0NYGyH7Y1sVNMuG8D4s0S2bcehj7pbuBn9+thTHxdRjWEQayljL0YZvMuXEmC D+UPMojNshHxYWLwGp2uH2sb/1tFm2SApJWCr4LvmPfhNAhFzW6NgU1EEqreGsDAA/lb FWgDhU+Ffkh9oLm1cK9Rwxr/bovIe++VFaqjBDtYaea9P/FWaFQTufnAk+OD4Vz4X4fy EW/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m6h6wx/gHwtpzvYQtQCzwuKmXBuEa1rQdiu8iZhgI81Dc2HC2a/vwsliTWHV77OnE5
X-Received: by with SMTP id 23mr8809509pga.139.1487887059250; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id a76sm11433951pfe.131.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: james woodyatt <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:57:32 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Peter Hessler <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:57:41 -0000

On Feb 23, 2017, at 05:40, Peter Hessler <> wrote:
> Restricting all subnets to The One True Size(tm) of /64 is utterly
> ridiculous.  Sure, that may be an artificial limitation of SLAAC and
> various other technologies, but *those* can have limitations.
> Limiting it inside the entire specification is even stupider of an idea
> than still supporting Classful networks.
> […]

It would help if those objecting to the promotion of RFC 4291 to Standard, unless the requirement for subnet prefixes to be generally /64 (except where noted by standards track documents), would please remember that SLAAC is only one of several technologies dependent on it. That’s why this draft now includes a reference to RFC 7421, which lists a non-exhaustive list of several things that are broken on subnets where prefixes longer than /64 are used.

My counter to these objections should be regarded from an overview perspective.

IPv6 is about more than just routers and the few thousands of network operators who love them. It’s also about hosts, their application software and the billions of ordinary people who use them.

Many of those Proposed Standard protocols listed in RFC 7421 (and a few others that were overlooked in that document, but which are nevertheless important) may not seem strictly necessary to the operator community bringing these objections, but they are necessary to make host applications provide user experiences on which billions of people depend. Insisting that RFC 4291 drop this requirement to be published as a full Standard is tantamount to insisting that IPv6 itself not be required to meet the needs of billions of humans around the world because Classful Networks make a few thousand network operators have a sad.

Needs of the many. Needs of the few. Seems like an obvious balancing problem to me.

--james woodyatt <>