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

Christopher Morrow <> Fri, 24 February 2017 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19063129CD4 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TRxShK_wIUxT for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7355C129CDF for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x71so9209038qkb.3 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id q128mr465863qkf.220.1487906364643; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:19:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Christopher Morrow <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:19:24 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: james woodyatt <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c044a6a52e57d05493e32d0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Peter Hessler <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 05:40, Peter Hessler <> 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.