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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 24 February 2017 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 E516F1294A4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.801 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_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, 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=umn.edu
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 fOMFqTwcJ0B0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (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 85A3212949B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B22CBF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:42:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id itdjxrV8b7sY for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:42:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com (mail-vk0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E088DCBA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:42:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id t8so15713936vke.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wC84cgqJSxwe5vAmrlbL4kow6iJAOu6vrYqzNGL5uqU=; b=Gd1h/esIdjYPQwQx12W2kAU8O/C9Vsh2v3oRVN2h8Jd4gsex83GyNRyeWr5OfomwDi PlQpy3oA2+8FX3twROSxIcZDe14m2HINW6Csdu3GvW4ab1fl09sODP2XXE8zDTHfZejF 90ReDa4jO26QIm28HKcgGgoCYSl1jN4wQ+xRCZRrSkNjonWLWsMsZioBqA+tf1RCLKOp yiHHI+/R4BMYsSLVeeKW5YHBTIippoZ81di/t6ien60tScOZhE51maO60OIU7iJHEODJ sRzTfW4aG6XLzadGVjt6/60/OsVFJhAAWejokUuoygPWsZwkWOcEJgCAR5XQPoe+ur5u 3fgA==
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=wC84cgqJSxwe5vAmrlbL4kow6iJAOu6vrYqzNGL5uqU=; b=lYhX5WoNXK1cFB6I/MbWfZBJvYGnG6rYzJ7A7PHHlIXwi38ek7pPrnrKrUe73vtGdr AnAgvlcak+f6fglQC7uACxE/4d5R+8H0uIq66hUmewiP17bWgslpgmkBYJ+F1WotTb6a d805eHoT+QUdyQYDqMac3YMTRI9BioSkdlnjMdwvEyZashCI9aLho2neaDS3anf1yOTj O3+h4dpK7TGmvlcd07pwyG8OtWlRXhsqnevVoGX61bl5MvCbkxdjTZjJH8fpHDOpbzNI UJG5NkcF+2+9S7/jXyhcwrvYhNXERNGfzR1OIS25AwLKzzYG1mAln+c1Zno3t0l8T7p8 gHcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kmJU2PrhqWkRXcbODnZ32BAtQDhUIWEK6VkRHPg/JpkquNQ1v+qS9WbEn8xcBo+9K9WXejXCyYkLIwa2PCOx6hzM6XUW8IkvAsYs/qep5Svgg445YanOFsKTPx68+NW4GSTNMtoFPrImQ=
X-Received: by 10.31.78.66 with SMTP id c63mr1868121vkb.117.1487961730368; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.78.66 with SMTP id c63mr1868110vkb.117.1487961730179; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.89.71 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:42:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.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>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:42:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148481e5dfb1e05494b162a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/UvHRzYM-SgPeoTYQfg1jDD5gSNM>
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:42:13 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:11 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 03:11, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>
>
> Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
> to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
> is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.
>
>
> I don’t know how I can be more clear about this: I insist that general
> purpose host operating system developers should be expressly permitted to
> write code that declines to accept subnet prefixes of any length other than
> /64 on the grounds that these are not used in general IPv6 networking and
> the successor to RFC 4291 continues to say so.
>
> I know there are operating systems with billions of units in the field
> today that do exactly this because RFC 4291 and its predecessors have for
> years given them clear license to do so, and I don’t want to see the
> publication of I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis as RFC come to remove this license
> as a side effect of promoting IPv6 to full Standard category.
>
> You want to remove that license? I suppose we can continue discussing
> that, but I think you should try to do it in a separate draft once IPv6 is
> officially promoted.
>
> --james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>;
>

I would not want to make code that does /64 only out of compliance with the
spec, especially for SLAAC.  I would like to discourage that stance, maybe
for DHCP, but for sure for manual configuration if that mode is provided.
But, I don't see /64 only as a invalid stance for an host OS to take.  But
neither do I want the spec to disallow non-/64 for DHCP, manual
configuration, or potential new modes of configuration if we ever get
there.  I think SLAAC should to remain /64 only. I think DHCP and manual
configuration should be encourage to support non-/64 options, but even they
should allow /64 only.

thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================