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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 26 February 2017 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 A141B127601 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:24:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 92ntW9zN59x0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com (mail-pg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9AC120725 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b129so34003475pgc.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:24:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P/lkoJf1O1UnuWnffWMcba2+Cuzr1kK7xr3my5mXpJc=; b=M2DRcNSepY+dwEh6p+DEq+rNCJ6K5Q02o1cHXWLReLtRgCMvcRDTtcsbpHgvjcN22P qz/NXVhWXaI9ngXyIIz+TXdyqgnUJay0y8qEaN4Gb5OOe13w+QZDQsV/1pPzIhWIDIBj 9HGQQwxmpVdWgb46TyL3tannGf53q3EbLXh/u4OR4j+HLkIPG54l8cUvuzD8qMm+QpY8 02ux3KvfrTAaJ4aTD5z7hGk9EI+HqwqAYxtAFQ0TBC/H0n88PY+BziLi+xfTXMU/5LKg +xQe+rff5QF9CyLM2lsAsObejIjrLvnz8XCL8OvWn24aFvXLv99NsU3XpmmzPhyv/jzx IwpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=P/lkoJf1O1UnuWnffWMcba2+Cuzr1kK7xr3my5mXpJc=; b=rrY1udN8xJlgUYLv8jkKxKRiFNfbzSuiFO2bBEqLDsskFtZyZUNkYoPZEjUO/cmSP7 vFlU4Cm/WyyJ0YUBWdbmGMoQV3vsn+5q/5Cqa97EBwxOJEqS4L6wYw4CA6eWZXBxpB/R vmv09bJqaGZVTq43rFE6zP1GejSE+jiDntFqKB7Ms0PN3FHPNycSiBXUatrYouUYP+AU QC0XcYL8YuZdgjKGHVJnN5czC3Rv6JexSw+8BHSVYqEOdJwi3yY4DhMpOWwmJtTSoDkp 33I2I5UK8ch26jiiRemSnb4HjN+/HI8leMsguefHhzpmZ7ViwXyuDSifJAxgeNi4Vipq FzQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mgAnBFE+28gYkarYomF7V+N1diX15O5YMc9V/V8obkePPF4U9tV5MkVt3vjLTyQQ==
X-Received: by 10.84.168.3 with SMTP id e3mr19138576plb.144.1488137096793; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.149.100.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p6sm26134398pgn.40.2017.02.26.11.24.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com> <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org> <6DA95097-8730-4353-A0C9-3EB4719EA891@google.com> <CAN-Dau0s04c=RV0Y8AGaxBPFui41TWPTB+5o0K2Lj-iah0An1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYirty22iGiEjEaYq3_KA1FZhxBTOBWuFOXQ9C-WPd5xQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0n6oFm538XdJOcuO1yg92BCDD3mBu5YfBVm_+g-gtcKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYO=uYgVfSZ0SoSe0SujJ1xgwEKE8WLzo_keJHywgXTtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1vJV5O_Ythp6THkAu4-YZXV82Upny1V+ybbjCVZQQX=A@mail.gmail.com> <27cce319-18ac-5c0e-3497-af92344f0062@gmail.com> <de4988be-6031-08d9-84ce-21c3fa4f9bc9@gmail.com> <98401ef7-cf41-b4a0-4d11-a7d840181bd0@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <1047f5fc-ae40-be52-6bab-27f31fe5e045@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:24:52 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <98401ef7-cf41-b4a0-4d11-a7d840181bd0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ZZ1sg-JDKOA2rD0hICPtiQRCNcM>
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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:24:58 -0000

Aelexandre,
On 27/02/2017 07:55, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
... 
>>> I would not agree if I read "/64 is RECOMMENDED".
>>
>> There I think you are wrong.
> 
> I think I am wrong depending on what tense we use: is it about the
> future or about the past?
> 
> When we say "is RECOMMENDED" and it becomes an RFC then that will
> effectively be recommended during the next 10 years or so, until next
> RFC update.  I fully disagree with this plan.  It will comfort the
> cellular operators to continue assigning a single /64 to one User Terminal.
> 
>> It is the value that today allows portable interoperable host
>> software (on IEEE 802.1 or 802.11 media)
> 
> (for 802.1 and 802.11 media - there is much I can say here - basically
> IPv6 stacks interface to EthernertII headers, no 802.1 nor 802.11, but
> that's another matter; wireshark and RFC2464 show that).
> 
> I would like to add that, in addition to the Ethernet I suppose you want
> to talk about by saying 802.1 and 802.11, the 64 limit is so only if
> SLAAC is there too.
> 
> If one uses only Ethernet (no SLAAC) then the 64 is not set in stone.
> 
> If one uses only SLAAC (no Ethernet) then the 64 is not set in stone.
> 
> If one uses SLAAC-on-Ethernet then 64 is set in stone, and only then.
> 
>  From this, to make a general IPv6 Architecture Architecture that says
> that 64 is RECOMMENDED default there is a long way.

You didn't pay attention to my phrase "portable interoperable host software".

I carry my laptop and my Android phone around quite a lot. I want them
to just work when they find themselves on a new IPv6 network. Given that
we never put in place dynamic parameterisation of the 802.1/802.11 IID
length, that's only possible because the various software writers involved
over the years all implemented /64. End of message.
 
   Brian