IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

otroan@employees.org Fri, 09 June 2017 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 06BC9129534 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 00:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 IHhiGMR9LnpL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 00:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9C9127444 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 00:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2017 07:47:00 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C925D788A; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 00:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=EUT+Fs5y/m2z7s6A000UIgQ7uuU=; b= NEy8qtR7G0dfKGOVhQZirbQFe8Om2K9T8WzjnbfwG7F2tmOq1B868VjfhF5E9lZQ neYqQjZND34P7XaAQgYzzN0UmNKioflRf2K/A1/5zUMnKjS5J1Ts0e6XMLEVrQ2U uP3mSsyLv4kjJ0Hgx4tph4L4hmJt3rkDlkyoBzNjbGs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=MwnEsc9jRll3oNhh/vZ2ccQ 6eFZhFo3VJEd3SeUfbKIhxZZmCcyykD6IZ8U5YZX84DkP6QijWFEbRimPYnGvVYG gFmR7x7FsMmcWEzclv7xNlLDjQJ7HwMyb8onhGdOBn4Rzu121coQ7g3ThEbTbGti B21fT+UVoQP3ArqP2bQE=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38287D788B; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 00:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220F1D0B8AAB; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <34A29D4D-3670-40BC-B62E-85C4EABC55D5@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7B4B2AE-D27C-46AC-9E58-478A9DB48D6B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 09:46:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <20170602141112.x64nleqclygz7dwd@Vurt.local> <20170602141259.GD30896@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr0DtQYvCYLQexhXe_nhb5rjeyhnB4bCveqyO5Xbuwdg1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEdjhsQ3tKPZdbdfF4ArDzw-FZfjQT68gV55Fc-5vzBvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ppM0UF8HoN8PgS7F0iEmK26ebiuJK=tkAdZnuLWpkZg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SHASt34ihJmGN0iRFQQzLTMspZfxXHgBjBatXXcRYF4cw@mail.gmail.com> <20170604093119.nt733rb3ymmjssww@Vurt.local> <m1dHTLx-0000DcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr0ZZwRar6D-2bkXBKPYehqqW99+BMtDOjyovR8WDXKzxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTjikAWutcenW8qn7OW8kPM9c_x_yDUy5vQxJmXKL85dg@mail.gmail.com> <91c3c0f4-eb8b-cdf7-b9c9-7d1eecb7fe64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_WR_TB+OC0U1Qt2h6WzUp9EGvrqC1ZKW2mwFeBd3bCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4021a559-5b6d-b3fb-19cd-afbe9041e8f2@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/H05Pv2BfvWIW2Lc5oAKLUSFdEgI>
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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 07:49:08 -0000

> On 6 Jun 2017, at 00:25, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 05/06/2017 19:45, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> None of that is the point. The point is to establish
>>> that routing is classless
>> 
>> 
>> Routing is already classless because BCP 198.
>> 
>> 
>>> and /64 is a parameter of specific addressing schemes.
>>> 
>> 
>> It *is* a parameter. The parameter's value is 64 for all unicast addresses
>> except those starting with 000.
> 
> The parameter's *current* value, yes. But should we really be fixing
> the value of the parameter once and for all in the addressing architecture?
> Why don't we fix it in each IPv6-over-foo, which is what the SLAAC design
> assumes?

do we have a rationale for fixing the value in the IPv6-over-foo documents (anymore)?

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email