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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 D41D8129D71 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:24:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 1CRTDfhALpR7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F55E129D70 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id DB562C064C; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:24:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.3]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B49FD1C005D; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:24:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::9898:741c:bc1d:258d%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:24:56 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Subject: RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjpCatM4MsdvAvU2EBRQMUtfNFKF4E2Kw
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:24:55 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E18552@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
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> <CAKD1Yr3-3-zH9P6SHR4nYJWKfXT-8+XkRpReD3fkaXUsn1WZDw@mail.gmail.com> <58B017FE.9050301@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <58B017FE.9050301@foobar.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YEi-kkjW2VWLUbIlv_t7CJ5KoYQ>
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 12:25:00 -0000

Exactly, Nick. 

For example, mobile devices will continue to be assigned /64 or even shorter. Operators are voicing for this publically: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7849  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Nick Hilliard
> Envoyé : vendredi 24 février 2017 12:25
> À : Lorenzo Colitti
> Cc : 6man WG
> Objet : Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
> 
> Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > If we remove the 64-bit boundary we are actually changing the balance
> > between the needs of network operators and host operators (a.k.a
> > "users").
> 
> No, we're not. The /64 requirement will still remain for the config /
> deployment scenarios that are important to you. Please stop inventing
> things.
> 
> Nick
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------