IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes

otroan@employees.org Tue, 14 March 2017 11:10 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 35E5912949A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 T-RPKanIqCHP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435F8129535 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2017 11:03:56 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3946D788A; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=Zl8dpmr15yzeLQbHq83Ph3IWPCM=; b= mGPTPEU2krhEUaE2NOa+DX+sQLQhaDgow/J/gLoumkOam1SwoHlTy61tIjxLkmUG HHpfJTfKWt9KI+1WaUNFpksQGOYWgzMPGvpTprOXFU5dlS0jqeFPJBjJdZ4pNt86 9PGEJ7G0IZjL0LEhDBFAZpdwY4dEJs8RJmi539nnTfY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=e+SKPp8b/r9GeaXGERtTTWX e3I90p2Q4XinxI6Ia2VKDEPACfncinrSnYdAB3nkzTPNDzBq9gi9cjP4c0NsdMKK lz8o5Kien+fLkJCHBja8XpH98aSfGsODvejqCALMe/zuHNUO17W8Dl9iJ5iEpYE3 DC4uVxB6hU3shI4lcICA=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EFE2D788F; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AB39D68CCF; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:03:53 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <026FE8B0-6FFA-4835-8D72-D4CBC6187A2D@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1DB6C507-5F90-4329-ABED-6F3919483966"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: a draft about on-link and submit prefixes
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:03:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <49C05C3D-9594-4A46-BBA4-5767A9FDD34A@jisc.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
References: <CAJE_bqdd9OXOi+SZ8_OfGWXxEoKSfoR6=Lp3-_=vEaWbjx4udw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3ncJkNwZgpWpr049K497iLAQ3dCzJ6dCHM1VsrC8UHog@mail.gmail.com> <20170314.080739.74664517.sthaug@nethelp.no> <9B0384FA-7DF8-4AE2-ADA3-48C142203575@jisc.ac.uk> <BD1C6A8D-F9D6-44D4-9911-20E1DE3F1658@employees.org> <49C05C3D-9594-4A46-BBA4-5767A9FDD34A@jisc.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XE9VLOxhybSFSM8jBBNuJm7X2R0>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "jinmei@wide.ad.jp" <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
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: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:10:49 -0000

>>>> I agree that a generalization is a good idea. In particular, it would
>>>> be good to have (in one place) a definition of what an IPv6 subnet is,
>>>> especially if a subnet can be spread across multiple links (which is
>>>> *not* obvious to me from reading RFC 4861 and RFC 4862).
>>> 
>>> I like this idea. Examples along the lines that Lorenzo included in his email would also be useful to include, with notes on use cases.
>> 
>> Any idea of what problem we're trying to solve...?
> 
> I think it’s adding Informational clarity, especially for those familiar with thinking ’the IPv4 way’, without adding unnecessary wordage directly to 4291-bis.

Right, that was what I feared.
Including esoteric examples and examples bordering on configuration errors, just isn't going to add clarity in my opinion.

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email