Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 14:20 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 5943E12996C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:20:58 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 SNaymudMCXki for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x233.google.com (mail-ua0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::233]) (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 2C21212996B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c32so2576029uac.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:20:56 -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=jZ2fdpfX/cx11QcavB/eYV0y/4uFYZglqhi2S1Xsqfc=; b=sDl41hJ19+0hQsavprYeZ3l40gX1NbNMn2B9wJ9HS98FiwNLBg486yNgh02bqzYtsE EsrLgX9aN/n6d4nqcaUH8biHwbbmGOmxgTtAIudYjYNAbYB3+EJh42qFD2EBix5m09L/ kWDHmfn5sT2GFTvM06VFBLqhObZrv/tf307vkhoXDMZ4zOWfXe60ZB1tQB53+orHcMxX Qum/PhOi+4AN3JdX91XAdy9oKDVIb6PUtNkxFTVKpEXDzoAruKeCmQsCMGniKnHgiTR3 hrZKl1f/xvy8BSLjI9nyzJ343hJ+DN34hiiQqUXI0/6fLu0ZVYM/pp3cF9B8eDE76a24 xdGg==
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=jZ2fdpfX/cx11QcavB/eYV0y/4uFYZglqhi2S1Xsqfc=; b=alBy9e1U2x3YLcpcaTZHNAxA5FvpXHPVOZMP6S6qIIwI0jVOszzRvGHIRnv/vrdm/D Wmgz4X2OwDB11+Sys0PZFiA7qCranGdKUQFoxct1/iyCrSZB5Hc/iBQ6jKYy/ayrrB/N Mfyko3l2vBoIsX/n4L3/drUoUYU7CWIq+mi+cERaHJmQNulRXCMo6R0GLwq6HX+iyVU0 yT5YFiZ3x8jAwse6WlVCsrvyieLD7HQUCi7PklnpKXq5wfvIRui4OBQODs3781ZFP87V r7Rm+vQq+e3B/kb8P701HMtIxSaiTqMSwokQMk+mncAmc2gYXR8TfC5aXyr3ontx0lTX WywA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lcyYu4KDS2s/Xb70utoDoZulwBcDICXcQtCTHkHqbET8KIZ3bVzkq2lUBdQriby5sHas02rTJeStDSr7he
X-Received: by 10.176.17.108 with SMTP id g44mr1124864uac.30.1487773254923; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:20:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:20:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark>
References: <05FD5283-9A15-4819-8362-5E6B2416D617@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr3B+dw83B0+26oUqdVJE==wHUBwoWzfWBJep8f+=uM8xQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9dc153a-61a8-5976-7697-ce1ecc9c8f3f@gmail.com> <4AF83EE6-6109-491F-BE66-114724BB197B@employees.org> <75196cfa-5476-0c7b-7612-ea2e446fc6f1@gmail.com> <B4A4FFFD-A90D-4C26-BDBD-75555840CA22@employees.org> <m2wpcqeuot.wl-randy@psg.com> <44F7BEDA-CF11-4E1E-BA6F-88794DEC1AF7@employees.org> <20170221001940.GB84656@Vurt.local> <068ce975-8b1e-a7c5-abba-2bfc1d904d70@gmail.com> <20170221101339.GC84656@Vurt.local> <CAKD1Yr33oQb=gMGaEM++hLgmMtxMdihiDrUihEsjs63vy8qRbA@mail.gmail.com> <54c81141-e4f5-4436-9479-9c02be6c09bb@Spark> <CAKD1Yr28iQHt0iuLvR3ndrT3Hfct=4k9dxjJeu3MAjDjOogEvA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZgTp++PJ9KGHEWuPoVm6t3b8QfVDCEhz5h4fv-0fuUAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3SbR=xt3RPu7+q1o14wKuUuwUc6oG+BgZtEK1O+m5sWw@mail.gmail.com> <4936e96b-fc82-4de0-9188-ced9547deb2f@Spark>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:20:33 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3K+SJb_4ksZ96yNypVKJE-fXopuVaXNhhKp1gkh1=QEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030435b5705e1c3b05491f347f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IEam1DuTZs5reWY0ZBOdDF2xs_s>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 6man-chairs@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, 22 Feb 2017 14:20:58 -0000

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:

> One of the immediate benefits of using a /126, is that it's not a /64!
>

That argument is nonsensical. You can't prove that A is better than B only
by saying that A is not the same as B.


> Also, a /126 is the smallest non-64 size with the highest likeliness to
> get the job done from an interoperability perspective (not the /127).
>

I don't see how you can simultaneously argue that /126 is good because
vendors don't implement the RFC 6164 and allow /127 AND that you want to
change the standard. If vendors don't implement the standard, then what
good does changing the standard do you?