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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 01 March 2017 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 20BD01295F3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 05:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 TTcNuSvplyp7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 05:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC50129491 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 05:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF35E6065; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:45:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:45:03 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170301.144503.74665389.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: ghankins@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <20170301104457.GA14420@nokia.com>
References: <20170301072747.GA10187@nokia.com> <CAKD1Yr0YDwpk2R33znnj=_0xoFbw-fx3v75n_7ftqqSmUmz-Ng@mail.gmail.com> <20170301104457.GA14420@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XVF_TIluqOfQkWiz5L-FCoCTblE>
Cc: 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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:45:07 -0000

> Call it whatever you want, the point again is that we have customers who have
> deployed whatever addressing architecture meets their requirements, and we
> can't force them to change it.  It's their network and their address space.
> 
> You are correct that other standards had the same requirement, which my
> current and all of my former employer's* implementations also ignored for
> the same reasons that have been mentioned.

And will presumably continue to do so, because customers will demand
this functionality in the form of RFPs etc. We are certainly planning
demand this in RFPs.

Steinar Haug, AS2116