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

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 01 March 2017 10:04 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 0517412940C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:04:47 -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 eNQ1ryaGz_J2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F851298CC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 02:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846E9E6067; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:04:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:04:43 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: lorenzo@google.com
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <3fba77e0-d7ff-802e-019b-6fe152eaee67@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.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/XeXb4jGCYC0EhhSdzyNY7kdsMAc>
Cc: jhw@google.com, 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 10:04:47 -0000

> Ah, I see the disconnect here: you're talking about the addressing
> architecture, and I'm talking about unicast addresses assigned to actual
> networks. Those addresses are called "all global unicast addresses except
> the ones that start with binary 000" in 3513 and 4291, and "aggregatable
> global unicast addresses" (specifically, 2000::/3) in 2373.
> 
> What I'm saying is that for that latter type of address, the IID length has
> always been fixed to 64, and should continue to be.

Which, as pointed out repeatedly in this discussion, means ignoring
the real world cases of non 64 bit IIDs. Thus I completely disagree
with the "should continue to be".

Steinar Haug, AS2116