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

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 F00C5129AD4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:41:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 l14379UR4Y6Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68AA8129ABC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v1NKfF2v052130; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:41:16 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.238.222]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v1NKf9rR051927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:41:09 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:41:09 -0800
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:41:09 -0800
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjdpvHMQuOTwVQEa1egjWGUVyuqF3KLmAgABcRwCAAAwsAP//ezFQ
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:41:09 +0000
Message-ID: <f0fc8898e12347949e5b61493c08e833@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <CAKD1Yr16PZDUEKQHd3At9GRz23EBKL7dTr5+aQCnzOwaT0bAxw@mail.gmail.com> <bf4e62d9-71b3-2b3a-1a57-d4105eca4691@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2z-hNxqNTr=UGTMafJTjNFsKmjNWj0TDgodZ_=tV+LpXQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2z-hNxqNTr=UGTMafJTjNFsKmjNWj0TDgodZ_=tV+LpXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_iKQyPTubMRY1OKvhiIoXkMttoI>
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:41:18 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Smith

> 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.

Perhaps, and yet "the community" has determined that embedding MAC addresses in layer 3 addresses is a bad idea. No one is championing IPX these days. I do agree with the sentiment about too many changes, by the way.

IPv6 nets need to be capable of expanding at the EDGES. This reflects my reality. If this is not allowed, the simple conclusion is that NAT66 is going to be used extensively. We have solved this problem before!

Bert