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

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 24B89129B08 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rtHy2JcYMJTc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5658C129C0F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v1NNAS31036074; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:10:28 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.219]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v1NNAJ69036042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:10:19 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdb::8988:efdb) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:18 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:10:19 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Subject: RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjdpvHMQuOTwVQEa1egjWGUVyuqF3qhEAgAALKoCAAAOVAP//fong
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:10:19 +0000
Message-ID: <09b307f41b3e4274bd9508cec2bcaa95@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.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>
In-Reply-To: <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TaUknVxrV2-BCOIlP7RgWxTRAD0>
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:10:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt

> Some participants seem to be promising they will continue objecting to the
> promotion of RFC 4291 to full Standard until the /64 subnet prefix length
> requirement is dropped entirely.

Dropped entirely except for the 2000::/3 space, and the handful of other exceptions. Yes.

I'm still reading the propaganda in the popular press, about how huge the 128-bit address space is. It could be huge, but only if it's done right. Half of it, in effect, is out the window.

Bert