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

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@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 19063129CD4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TRxShK_wIUxT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::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 7355C129CDF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id x71so9209038qkb.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:25 -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; bh=POlOe/CUGFzc+E/JCcK2uMlBceCaVsXpP+qRnguMx7E=; b=QSCFU9DzoPvOyEQMDKglYg1p9W+PX+4WAHeR40DV8WFga7/1Mqrl3TZ0BzEXnt1A9+ X+67974bYifKC6HkijoAD9S328TnP2MXpx83sZ7j7JSXkGMcGbcqvOxA3RRtQGRJIO6w dGN7ZRTiaiY62SJZ0x25Clf5Lj4QIvey0jvD3pZLMEwldqgXDjIVBqQbn3oBoOOpdkal /tVS6NylzG4UEA0JuF5juJw8nC+nyE3Ar4ovJ2z+8klpHq7RREUwKgYdzMNrJocTM+HW HtLglzx/RgsUtPKEumMDBiVxOCcKXjGs4+2cTxRN/QKHZcbZx1Csow8hi04UE4+5DUR8 U8xA==
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=POlOe/CUGFzc+E/JCcK2uMlBceCaVsXpP+qRnguMx7E=; b=OoRH3HXOFEFVbgE+N8Lu6HKQrptON7s6mReZmYlOiAAj4RFEBNy/yY16kx3emXyq6+ 70UuG7iqbQjdUvP0I46p5wZMQ3zg5OnNpKWEY16IY4Ob5zpSpUKtcjXNJnJFCpjJ7bSy JPdFqYQ3Zc53qBg55o5ABSq7apeQ9YXiYZcRliJQSVNDPRTALajkYz++frpAfvntkUHl BJHDZtwhfng4xdWDK4x0eGD4MAbdmRTQs5oS7+fL/woNiSYxWYMtIjG6g5A8yVLqpNMb qEygksxOp4abQbdyhhME5jsapExkjhtY3sJlbm47vfYbg0ZoBAC8NGZUXyLjhfDZnrK1 BZdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l6Lc7nY25dymo51xck/s9pvlzJT0WGl6RiiNACsYTRf4qgjEnASaFEnhnwFfhq6Ed61MrzfGo+ELx1Rw==
X-Received: by 10.233.220.134 with SMTP id q128mr465863qkf.220.1487906364643; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:19:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaZ2h2mLYvANesMNj25ipq8QrTcmXsVLxGQMkME4WtpEow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c044a6a52e57d05493e32d0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/U0HrBH_YsOSVfRB0p6oJMJV9VCA>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:19:28 -0000

picking out one messge, not particularly picking ON one message...

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:57 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 05:40, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>; wrote:
> >
> > Restricting all subnets to The One True Size(tm) of /64 is utterly
> > ridiculous.  Sure, that may be an artificial limitation of SLAAC and
> > various other technologies, but *those* can have limitations.
> >
> > Limiting it inside the entire specification is even stupider of an idea
> > than still supporting Classful networks.
> > […]
>
> It would help if those objecting to the promotion of RFC 4291 to Standard,
> unless the requirement for subnet prefixes to be generally /64 (except
> where noted by standards track documents), would please remember that SLAAC
> is only one of several technologies dependent on it. That’s why this draft
> now includes a reference to RFC 7421, which lists a non-exhaustive list of
> several things that are broken on subnets where prefixes longer than /64
> are used.
>
>
there seems to be a general sense, in reading the many threads now about
this -bis draft, that we can only have one way. In the proposed changed
text, ~150 messages back and 2 threads over, there was the callout for
applications which require 64bit subnet masks ALONG with "if you really
know what you are doing, feel free to use a different subnet mask".

I feel like folk are stuck in the 1 or the other camp, and that isn't
helpful to this discussion.

Why can't we have both?

As  to age of text and other things, I look at this -bis and the review
here as the final step to making 'ipv6' a real standard and not a 'proposed
standard' correct? So before we stamp things 'DONE' making sure all eyes
are dotted and tees are crossed surely seems sane and rational.

-chris