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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Thu, 23 February 2017 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 BA6A1129AB3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 ThvV6ZkTPWQX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC75012940A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:49:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.foobar.org (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1NLmtus015325 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:48:55 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.foobar.org
Message-ID: <58AF58C6.6080204@foobar.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:48:54 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.10 (Macintosh/20170123)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr16PZDUEKQHd3At9GRz23EBKL7dTr5+aQCnzOwaT0bAxw@mail.gmail.com> <bf4e62d9-71b3-2b3a-1a57-d4105eca4691@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bf4e62d9-71b3-2b3a-1a57-d4105eca4691@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Gba-flZJ7moA6r1KtvtVsYei0EA>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:49:04 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Actually it has been very educational for me - not in my understanding
> of how IPv6 works, but in showing how badly this particular aspect has been
> documented for the last 20 years. Mainly, we've had too many words in the
> addressing architecture. I expect the next version to have fewer words
> on this topic.

looking at it from a slightly different angle, we've had 20 years where
the protocol has achieved some degree of acceptance, so it may be a good
idea to consider the merits of aligning theory with practice.  The /64
interface limitation is a prime example of something that ought to be
revisited.

Nick