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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 15:56 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 8DC711295A7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:56:57 -0800 (PST)
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 NoO3rqPLEc32 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (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 3E82A1295A4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id t8so11521633vke.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:56:56 -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=Bxh98UZd2KZz/WkG40R4ETNrXJzcdHN+pHl7C1n9Fvg=; b=E4aO1Dxg16XQt3qmuPBAhFFpoAJlhwl62bWRteXEpLF+f0KM9S3Bf0MrPVvMeZD6Z2 drqEmFMo2mXQHkMjkr+vCfs7YT8CWxDdYFekpJhSPr6FUpN3iYP9fgSUHSDBHwXcw0Vd f2B86uqXcKdFGsR4MEkEgXA946rSvpSSJskiNTOg66jpMv7irwA8rSl7+9ejbY0qlBN7 g2zRpjVAh9EG/zSEFZN9mIpee8ZBak37bzHpa+rBb/hrVJRN17ps6800EofyhJzGbJvA lSCDgKB9gjJ5uPrpdU3Gm+XkYlawb+TErtPP8vWIeeN0ue1EcyeKFpdQcHMpAn8w6pOO bn1w==
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=Bxh98UZd2KZz/WkG40R4ETNrXJzcdHN+pHl7C1n9Fvg=; b=rK6CV3mXW87C5SFeTx2EsCG2ypCQzu1eORfbyGPTLZzii/8bqGIphOccRwKiyh5UhC tZb1HhZNEXOn4p2/GNrYTv3dbA9F6ngRiE9mH07PVaaUcrtfH5BXf6n4LBfdw/oWBIKE ZTGCZQdEStrwnTbSggh6luK2yIKZGQZEty7BcIW7KsSlMQBO3usSo6SOS9YHV3EMvf6r vFJHAMS5/B+srw4MAOeVCzlg6ijA/cJuhLK1ECDS6t0wiStJMNEUG6D7M0p9uJvYc3mz TNb2b76t5KCE+RryAuWmvvcsji0A77KMCGPIpEklmgQWpq2t8nFvayhOa4ErigCY3zs/ 21OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mPVLfWWFBf1sOR6F0FFmrxBXc0Ri+08oFH4D5pRnHGUsy8JFoAMLd6lQWhfF9qw83pJjdK/kHzDztfwbDI
X-Received: by 10.31.5.13 with SMTP id 13mr745894vkf.156.1488383815097; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:56:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:56:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170301104457.GA14420@nokia.com>
References: <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301072747.GA10187@nokia.com> <CAKD1Yr0YDwpk2R33znnj=_0xoFbw-fx3v75n_7ftqqSmUmz-Ng@mail.gmail.com> <20170301104457.GA14420@nokia.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:56:34 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3H0_issqMq0ibqn_Ocv6w_FmKyx8tR_NhhsYkUu=myGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143d9c69725830549ad5c77
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/HgmcgPxsUh_ZoyWpdBXhzR5FXWE>
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:56:57 -0000

Yes, there are implementations that rely on the fact that IIDs are
specified to be 64 bits to provide useful functionality. And they are
widely deployed.

I have no objection to a router accepting a /117 prefix length when
configuring an IPv6 address. I do object to making host code that relies on
/64 noncompliant.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>;
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:59:26PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>;
> wrote:
> >> We can never change our
> >> implementation to be compliant with the proposed text because of the
> >> operational havoc it would create for our customers.  It's simply
> >> infeasible
> >> to impose these kind of addressing restrictions.
> >
> >The word "change" is incorrect here, because the standard that was current
> >when Nokia wrote its implementation had pretty much exactly the same
> >requirement. (The reason for that is that *all* past standards have
> >contained this language except for RFC 1884, which specified /80, which
> >won't work in the real world.)
> >
> >Could you reword your position to take into account that fact?
>
> Call it whatever you want, the point again is that we have customers who
> have
> deployed whatever addressing architecture meets their requirements, and we
> can't force them to change it.  It's their network and their address space.
>
> You are correct that other standards had the same requirement, which my
> current and all of my former employer's* implementations also ignored for
> the same reasons that have been mentioned.  This is a good opportunity
> for the -bis revision to reflect the state of operational deployments that
> have proven the assumptions in the original standard to be impractical.
>
> Is anyone aware of any implementations that comply with this requirement?
>
> Greg
>
> * Riverstone, Force10, Brocade
>
> --
> Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>;
>