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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 09:59 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 28F111298CE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:59:50 -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=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 NYinndCCuWch for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x230.google.com (mail-ua0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::230]) (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 8DC2E1298CC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f54so37734823uaa.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:59:48 -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=OnHC8YMqg9uV41jPDQx7IhqIad4dTJwHCB4Jt6SEVOA=; b=jpE/s3OCSBd3PJvckLpV5rwza0Dj61mVGv//QEotNm7fOvcYCorJBfPHYF/WxUK5l3 m8XtlLN4tHfE1233CvBPquonMaCdai5LZO81MkeSd/pGRuv9uZJFbc1URobpZOLsla97 BApmyUp4D3e8jtpeTqqFcMkFTjBBlX7+bkYaadNx2zav8vAai0JKwwzbcFRsh0/8WoTF KfRDOxnbhXvN+DaFCn3A1BDdH7U49na4t97EOvg9hgSZ8ern6OtxGubtm0Xnu4k2YMhC P3sr9oqdWYHRTVl0pVqs29Vay0sUGCOxnogAfYxyPYrctrV2pR7kV84mVSAAQlbwC+Wm hKMw==
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=OnHC8YMqg9uV41jPDQx7IhqIad4dTJwHCB4Jt6SEVOA=; b=gYOILMj9J3lNCScBkJoSgQ3AiNPYfgoaVSLLybOqvTzckDgU0bM9Rv/+8OwOyELALH mQJ8Kev0N2Ahr0SDRpQt8DAQRDIBVhr/ypd3ZqszFpsFQk2nK6RwvqLMSVzqsnr5L//f 0v33H+T0e0dpUNZWGCaIn/nZxLg+yN4MTKZCTfOMjLV9lMC0wm6c8RScF5mNz8qzFYQH DaNlV1iKmaaFaWjlWfaPTfap28I1WQPLFkYCPuQcYnFNqbts7UF0aTcQtFbiGcYQZnni 1fTwiitj3Mt6uV//cmhjTjiPy+8RVIg1Ug/MOSTHMwVdt38rkRxKN05AUABjP5fxqBTv rBTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kpvvB8hTHvPNDjeI2SEThMvmua1sbcpvVvfsCF4iiV9wlra8f+Br+hsBOn+eWWRgkk+YvU1aZwrLMIF3s9
X-Received: by 10.176.2.71 with SMTP id 65mr1038892uas.155.1488362387566; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:59:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 01:59:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170301072747.GA10187@nokia.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:59:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0YDwpk2R33znnj=_0xoFbw-fx3v75n_7ftqqSmUmz-Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Greg Hankins <ghankins@mindspring.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11428a3668cc710549a85f4e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IYezGprq4Z3Q4lc-iae3fivcuOU>
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 09:59:50 -0000

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?