Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 69139129610 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 04:13:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 RHPHhBk-XGe0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 04:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x231.google.com (mail-ua0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::231]) (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 07D6712960B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 04:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 72so35693466uaf.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 04:13:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Pvawf/6EkNpdkwAiXPTRAcYheWIBcwDscVFLx7JDFdo=; b=MKhtI5CIEUednNUsvDFT0bwQrjavOb9TQdQkkWyiUK4RPnwibvKTKmHRyxwes57vrR xGsdnQSVCBkfEwldHEzKr2Q2blWdE9OibJO6e/0zpEgM+IiYNUsby4UNjk82+7zV3IGQ H6QosTJP/0WQva6s+TQeNFYitGxjHFLNS203AWfKewLjj4878c1joGhrughV+JcqziYa UO98xzONAi+EOp0kRmhB/vUF7Ci78ZvuseqXGBxKTjDZvruuJhe2ahlqcrfukll0BCN3 DFCCoV7lbhs/KLhMIg8xpbq9DBfN57i6KXnMwPp+6n0zrnWFFOTmtyOL+KAsAtD+Rjra izpw==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Pvawf/6EkNpdkwAiXPTRAcYheWIBcwDscVFLx7JDFdo=; b=BIanxaPqHQVDsXTSetR7L/ZY77C98eYXlpusGYMgqH4B+EcBhbvijPB1l+p/ltARP5 FzOKtLq0Z3BteGPWkbqHPQfLf4BNwQszmHQNIdEYcI5ZNNjoKj6ClMEiqQh8GIFnvhs3 z5K75Uvc2uQXL/pWAQIFUeK/n4Xia0JSquoxmKCbXLQSq3x1J8AS0tLHB+IX4jSl33yM FgoMOyjHpkCze2ynh54/ulVsz/tp6Y1+g1Ur3HDxPYc9+sGsqDQsS+oC+z7XnrYeeDpJ x9FqHO+LGML14w4Unq5J4LC81buLvxPCz+e910UKfov2dSrOgMQ3+cx8Y0/J6NqFEFTl Zdew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lzJ5ZV9lUgQcBxW5mYRkl+tXl/As9HVMIVDxXrOUSmD5m88kqYTzJmo7nOiIjw2MRXi2liq3hxcbqlNg==
X-Received: by 10.176.74.86 with SMTP id r22mr3021492uae.18.1488975230118; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 04:13:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.36.144 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 04:13:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <e8b5d239-e6d1-9996-12ab-96729763ab9b@gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau3BOVo3UhyGEdxKR-YgqpLqJVxV7uswCCXFsaQoKRaKHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2UFnVyFptyLD5EqchLNWJyGhoBk2RKNavP1Gc2_zSUVw@mail.gmail.com> <e8b5d239-e6d1-9996-12ab-96729763ab9b@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:13:19 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2woVonRm45TLWY2s+sP=wPw+Y1=Wud6Q-6t-MfzPYZ2+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A 3rd try at a proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SU8wSaQ7JRBDBFTbGp3sXDy7c18>
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, 08 Mar 2017 12:13:52 -0000

On 7 Mar. 2017 7:47 am, "Alexandre Petrescu"
<alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:

agreed with some of the things that I cut but I have one question.


Le 06/03/2017 à 19:46, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>
> If we allow the boundary to change, there is a near certainty that
> too-small subnets *will* be configured in some places,
>and is IETF a place to make recommendations of making big or small
> subnets?  Isnt it for the RIRs to make such recommendations?


Protocol designers have to make addressing design decisions, such as
the structure of addresses and special address value semantics. If
they didn't, then it would only be possible to have a single
forwarding method and no other semantics embedded in addresses for the
entire address space.

For example, if the entire address space is chosen to be destination
based unicast addresses, because only a single choice can be made,
there will be no possibility of any multicast forwarding, or a special
purpose loopback address or prefix.

It is also useful if they choose general defaults, so that things can
work without significant or ideally any configuration.

Imagine the situation of buying a car, and not being able to drive it,
because none of its tunable parameters had been set to reasonable
defaults. Mechanics wouldn't have a problem, and may enjoy the
experience of setting all the parameters to make the car work. The
rest of wouldn't find buying a car an easy experience at all.
Mechanics would lobby against making cars (literally) turn-key,
because they would be making money from setting all the parameters.

Regards,
Mark.