IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Subject: Confirming consensus on adopting draft-carpenter-6man-why64

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AB01A03A0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0nfKHrXpWcLf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155B71A03B4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p61so4122090wes.41 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L//57Wgv4gT70XvVXtmcrQEewqIazMuPQEWFoEXQwSE=; b=PtjcdnOjsTj5DGWvjIEColzk5Nnr1CuPlCJ6MvgJFdCDP97we+Ep6RL0algU2jwJWm Ixf8yhK9M9ZiwMvyp6dncz2L7Ru3o7mpbju9MJLVrqxa3ZKCWhM/Plm6w0T7MlaF3Vjm ksTQqJTcy1k5hnzFpFHR+tEMP7MdsfELkxuQ6vKDfGdK4O+79JPGZ1m1E2bHYz9NnkGQ 86cBG1aI51Q/X6kQAy0DENTNlMGUh87RbRFltui2qx3LLvpGwhxELZaA3bLgjC7DOUlG Y2kxcCtjhSAFbWeWE1nnDMJl9Oltx3lKXvUAN+bIfLSWGFJoRrf+CNtfay/8qDu1Id/+ TrMg==
X-Received: by 10.180.12.14 with SMTP id u14mr8647423wib.0.1395042980770; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.6] (cpc8-mort6-2-0-cust102.croy.cable.virginm.net. [82.43.108.103]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bi8sm21757373wib.3.2014.03.17.00.56.19 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5326AAA1.1040206@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:56:17 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Subject: Re: Subject: Confirming consensus on adopting draft-carpenter-6man-why64
References: <9734C3A6-2678-4B50-98BD-21767420B9A4@gmail.com> <5321FBD8.60806@umn.edu> <CAKD1Yr2QJSK5rbr+kJwQC6_JzBQqzLGi+tkH-NKho_5Ea1=tJw@mail.gmail.com> <20140314.093747.74749553.sthaug@nethelp.no> <5322CA39.1020208@gmail.com> <5323316C.1010004@acm.org> <5325DC5D.1040107@globis.net> <CAKr6gn0e84E91mQXHZij8_ACwj1mTcgGTNvTRfuv_8c8cc-b_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0e84E91mQXHZij8_ACwj1mTcgGTNvTRfuv_8c8cc-b_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YV20OAv5wbYO2Uf3jeQ_WNfKV0M
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:56:31 -0000

George,

On 17/03/2014 12:00, George Michaelson wrote:
> Not wanting to be too stupid, would it not make for POLA in the future, if
> we defined the /64 rule to apply only to the specific current IANA
> allocation spaces, plus the required others, and thus *not* define it for
> the remaining vast majority of the address space? we're in 2000/3 right
> now. We're in specific spaces like fc00/7. We have multicast. But the vast
> mass of the space is unconstrained and I don't think that limits to just
> 'everything but 000'
> 
> Lorenzo stated 'if its not 000 in the top, then its /64' and I rather
> suspect it should be 'if its 2000/3 in the top, plus the following defined
> spaces its /64' and everything else is unconstrained...

That would be a normative change. The draft under discussion is
informational, so can only reflect the current standards.

Everybody,

If you want to discuss possible normative changes, could you
kindly start a thread with a suitable subject header?

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email