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

Job Snijders <> Thu, 23 February 2017 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFA5129AC7 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:45:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lo6wbaOmmgWD for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:45:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:3::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97AFA129A24 for <>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:45:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from <>) id 1ch0GA-000EB0-NP (; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:45:17 +0000
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:44:38 +0100
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Mark Smith <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Peter Hessler <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:45:19 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 07:28:26AM +1100, Mark Smith wrote:
> On 24 Feb. 2017 06:45, "Brian E Carpenter" <> wrote:
> On 24/02/2017 03:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <> wrote:
> >
> >> As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
> >> you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
> >>
> >> I strongly oppose this draft.
> >
> > Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.
> > Nonsense. The exactly correct time to object is when a document is
> > being Last Called for Internet Standard status. Until this point in
> > time, IPv6 has only been a Proposed Standard.
> > Actually it has been very educational for me - not in my
> > understanding of how IPv6 works, but in showing how badly this
> > particular aspect has been documented for the last 20 years. Mainly,
> > we've had too many words in the addressing architecture. I expect
> > the next version to have fewer words on this topic.
> I think another issue is that people with an IPv4 only background may
> expect that IPv6 is just IPv4 with bigger addresses. They then find
> many other new things, and, as they're not aware that many if not all
> of these things were used and deployed in other layer 3 protocols such
> as IPX, CLNS and Appletalk, think there is too much change and too
> many untested capabilities.

This is called a "straw man argument". You construct this nonsensical
non-existent "IPv4 only person" and then making ridiculous assertions
about this "ignorant ipv4 person".

This type of argument is often used in polemical debate, particularly in
arguments about highly charged emotional issues, where the defeat of
"ipv4 people" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding
both sides of the issue.

> IPv4 was primarily designed and developed in the 1970s. Protocols like
> XNS/IPX/CLNS and Appletalk were designed and widely deployed in the
> 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Appletalk v1 in 1985). IPv6 was designed in the
> mid 1990s, and I think it has taken ideas from all of these ancestor
> and popular at the time protocols. I think about the only thing that
> is really new in IPv6 is the idea of using different multicast groups
> based on portions of the IID for neighbor discovery messages - even
> then Appletalk uses multicast for that function, however it was just a
> single group.

Thank you for this lesson in history, but I assure you that many of us
are intimately familiar with IPv6. 

> So perhaps one of the barriers we're pushing up against is the
> perception that there look to be far to many new things in IPv6 (i.e.,
> it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses), even though they're only
> really new if your reference is just IPv4.

Can you please tone down the fanboyism a bit? Not only are you repeating
yourself, but in repeating the IPv6 evangelism you are not contributing
anything of substance to this technical dialogue.

The topic of discussion is not whether IPv6 differs from IPv4 or how it
differs from IPv6. Strictly speaking IPv4 has _nothing_ to do with this

Kind regards,