IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 12 July 2017 13:54 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 2B541131919 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 TougsLIoiNYi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 B08E0131907 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r125so13175816vkf.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
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=xswzVrBmnFvFZTdu9PmbJlcRf+irbMjqeirSdQtuFns=; b=HFuNnEoU3DjkD0Hvyt5IJZJLyfhdU1eZUnzPRq1effrQMSGaq3Uey1DRwlAyeprpiC v+gJjRW37rBVpZ6T9yyWEmYNdCz8c9a1BBMcSUFbhCFvGFdwP5VqEh2BUyj3T1pDmEVA gwIIz+8CigZFwc2GLlgk4ZsCmj32d5H/ElEbX2RxkzptXpTZySYQjr7arqa6UnADMm91 Z17BBgUdC1npdU4tXN++yKfh/50ZVyAo5H/htzhyXqngtrLLgMlpmEJCKeQKvOw9AKTj K+43MAc4x6/I3cAtJ8qcEA8XcATKUOAEJe0bA+MP/s64zBRCMyzOuVn0FfDKZ53R2yKX IeKA==
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=xswzVrBmnFvFZTdu9PmbJlcRf+irbMjqeirSdQtuFns=; b=kRMCYzvLlSTExJKs0JUxuobmYzxMsrUWJGjrXdzgxKFMbEJSbddGbPts/JmloQWFVf zamQm+V0i2RLXApySoQjnwareVrIvh+h89NExS+gYB0zZ2z5tjKb7zHho3VTRdWLO5jL 0Kj7t7QHQNrUPkPq8OOqIW9ebmEJ6MEaP0+SkSHLIx0rJ61iFG5mvhEmBBcHo6j10azk MGe9JGKuaaELBUbA4xjTndWMyfBmFM8dgtEv0VonQ9QYpFb4A0PokXNzx5xm0qMPHXGT GC2ToqwHk/X4f1RU/UnFglWI0+5pjMlbmRvKeqrKTq1p16p1kEDTEnTe0cEO4Dev2lj5 EL9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110ElbBBOx/qO/g7cFj6KI8upCs1HOv3xm8mgaVGdNpC+OY4hFYL +4I3ALFDQvBer2iD6iZRtj9ZgXx9xFST
X-Received: by 10.31.209.199 with SMTP id i190mr1330661vkg.125.1499867649446; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.48.129 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 06:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:53:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr2ifGJaWJpWir8MXbSHcATL181VbA1MMtiQ=8Bzr2WmQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e6e1875190d05541f267d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FBZggcxMmp7ROUd9ckyjSJxkgT4>
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:54:12 -0000

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> The advantage of requiring or recommending 64 bits is that it avoids the
> debate about N. I prefer 'recommend' because it avoids enumerating all
> possible exceptions. We've seen how hard it is to wordsmith the exceptions.
>

What's hard is not wordsmithing the exceptions.

What's hard is claiming that there's consensus (even rough consensus). The
fact of the matter is that we have opposing camps with equally strong
opinions on the matter, and neither camp is willing to accept the position
of the other.

Based on past experience, it seems pretty clear to me that this situation
will not change until we get a problem statement that we agree on. Care to
write one up?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email