Re: disagreement on which OS should change
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Sat, 27 April 2019 18:27 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 74D94120183 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:20 -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, 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 CWqD0OBQqz0H for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) (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 8F667120088 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id a9so9191436wrp.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xiqJI3OyeQK3moYYg8ISRi0TyywuZYy2A0dfG5HDhvo=; b=FQzuKDnJhmq6v8/tUAsPWqvSBxqkYV3bVQf8ahq3u93/xGfx+Nc8l55eAfTQegxx2H Edhe8YIB2wQDClNL7ijltfITq+Gq3caleBdcNiDgz+JdbRGvw93cvYF1ZEybfedBYRo8 slmzUXleBBhsGDHzkz0OUKYKG5UmyJDBHP9k4vaSXrKTinvic7dKAV+SyULuBjhUF98s /C04xImUcoR03QiNmHJYbg1XySY5IzRXAXetpHaRNf4qMVblkRrepvhIdny9YORfVwOI dpprHYi4NKPr6B7eJVYXjHNF2OC653NyBU4vvADXlcOseHqp2X6q6PJFPkicX43dxpir TY1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xiqJI3OyeQK3moYYg8ISRi0TyywuZYy2A0dfG5HDhvo=; b=r9srmv9ud2VFtOFnfE/VrE2wfINu8mHWPjWcZc+w+rwdJAtCDz3R/50ZUV5UoxdSHS kU6Q8RpebOkPK/lgg29G8UZRdUxjftcIg2sNu9AkZ3EVemzhmEpmCkIC4YWfZcbHP7M4 ZQvWH7STKS6U2KDiPmiGGD/K6EjBSvFbhPt6asHYsGYMDtx0uGrBCYEYfqsW+q8PvCh0 uJh6CBLmrtNvJc8bsIDgd3Z+K0BHluehW11/UnKEfnN5eKk1JS5r4u5N7KjYOKsNoRJI N+Mb3sGunPIgMes1tvcGLb8vIXPMMMQMyFTKT/QUyqdVk5zjyuDIs6LRYSyY0VynUlP0 J9pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVA3oVWgCpDB1PSel3AWH/nmAuhAWB9E4lUShkGR8lFOydq46FS beI13ugBgpLCehWzSlsV2ik=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwPt9b/NJOO8Tipe/ainpfnR/VQJHF3dm9ICT9/Jd8GTVg1pfdlHOzQQg48wot4LP7P6pFWmg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:10c3:: with SMTP id b3mr9464554wrx.9.1556389636082; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5e:a1af:76ab:19ff? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5e:a1af:76ab:19ff]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t9sm35624572wra.71.2019.04.27.11.27.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: disagreement on which OS should change
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b52ee92f-ad62-fd13-2785-4b98b7c0f90a@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:27:06 -0700
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <96C4704C-48F5-42B3-BDC2-1F1ED88A7025@gmail.com>
References: <bb7f7606-2adf-e669-8bcd-e41f17800782@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd9frqX5-yeVPj8MYXpZ4737HqK1gmfD9cQV3A-Ea5HrQ@mail.gmail.com> <6bd5db47-408a-727e-5c13-f34a3465f986@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqfTLqRbLp4fLu2ASZuZ+4G5c2G+RXkO92kXfLgPTqBnng@mail.gmail.com> <EEF00EA7-2AAF-403F-99AD-1D53ED18E8B3@cisco.com> <CAJE_bqe8OXPWRDvXEY66gZHiBgv37OV67YB27WoEtq_VmBqieQ@mail.gmail.com> <3F852B26-FD19-445D-A8E9-94BCBB9BE7C1@gmail.com> <455C3D20-E71B-4DF4-837E-081964E3328A@gmail.com> <19275484-3fa5-7c4e-3624-b861ddea6e2f@gmail.com> <2B1FBA08-3DDB-4287-B2B4-11324334B7FC@employees.org> <CAJE_bqdg3wjbJOmB2iPij00yNXbES7Hj7WYtKH0vyY+9Lce3ow@mail.gmail.com> <6da1d50c-2835-d98e-2ab9-41cdd4d9f367@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeahhEax1GvrgdDiCkDRhUpqu-9NpR4sYpEuqwYU==WZQ@mail.gmail.com> <96291515-b70b-5451-d3e4-e44f25cd93bb@gmail.com> <5D35DDCE-1A41-4BEA-B178-344B70AC41D4@gmail.com> <CANMZLAYjDKoM=E7iuRmoim30uCiUt0gz23AvdDO6rzEx7Vkphw@mail.gmail.com> <AA384F70-30C7-4DDF-A9D0-D0AC9D2EA023@employees.org> <b52ee92f-ad62-fd13-2785-4b98b7c0f90a@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aYXh5aFhu3WT8ybTBw2nZBsm6A8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 18:27:20 -0000
Alex, > On Apr 27, 2019, at 8:03 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 27/04/2019 à 10:33, Ole Troan a écrit : >> Quite. The most prudent action is to stop responding to messages in these sets of threads. I will do so, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. > > Ole, > > I do not understand this. > > You invited me to rate limit my messages. I did. I see 4 emails so far today, 7 yesterday, 4 on the 25th, and 13 on the 24th. That doesn’t look like rate limiting to me. Bob > > Now you invite everyone (probably myself too) to not respond to these sets of threads I initiated. > > I would like to ask you: do you think I should stop this topic? Do you ask this as a WG Chair? > > If so, please be explicit. > > Thank you, > > Alex > >> Cheers, >> Ole >> On 27 Apr 2019, at 09:54, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> I don't understand this discussion. LL addresses exist in the absence of any routers and are created spontaneously by hosts with no external inputs. Therefore, there is no such thing as an identity for a link, there is only an interface identifier which is strictly local to the host. Even in a point to point case, there is no reason that the two hosts would agree about the link's identity. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >>> (via tiny screen & keyboard) >>> >>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019, 17:13 Gyan Mishra, <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> I agree and that completely makes sense what you are saying. >>> >>> So with RFC 4291 all hosts for all subnets we’re actually sitting >>> on the same fe80::/64 even though different physical or logical >>> interfaces and each host was made unique by the EUI64 station id. >>> >>> So with the new draft if all hosts would sitting on the same >>> global unicast subnet now also sit on the same unique Link local >>> subnet. So the RA for Default route sent to all hosts on the >>> subnet would be this new LInk local set on the router >>> >>> Subnet 1: >>> Router A fe80:1::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:1::1 ::/0 sent to host >>> >>> Router B fe80:1::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:1::1 ::/0 sent to host >>> >>> Host A fe80:1::EUI64 bia >>> >>> Host B fe80:1::EUI64 bia >>> >>> >>> Subnet 2: >>> Router A fe80:2::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:2::1 ::/0 sent to host >>> >>> Router B fe80:2::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:2::1 ::/0 sent to host >>> >>> Host A fe80:2::EUI64 bia >>> >>> Host B fe80:2::EUI64 bia >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On Apr 26, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Alexandre Petrescu >>> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com >>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> Le 25/04/2019 à 18:09, 神明達哉 a écrit : >>> >> At Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:41:35 +0200, >>> >> Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com >>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com >>> <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >> > > > That an implementation allows you to do something does >>> not mean that >>> >> > > it is supported (in the product sense) nor that the RFC is >>> wrong. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Right, but I actually don't understand why we still have to >>> have this >>> >> > > kind of conversation. Almost all real-world >>> implementations have some >>> >> > > glitch; >>> >> > >>> >> > The problem here would be to ask which of the OSs have the >>> glitch: the >>> >> > ones that support fe80:1:: or the ones that dont? >>> >> Obviously the former. >>> > >>> > I think it is the latter: the OSs that dont support fe80:1:: >>> should change. >>> > >>> > Alex >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > If time permits: >>> > >>> > I would like to make a note here. I know that AD and Chairs >>> read these messages. I would like to invite consideration of >>> these messages, if time permits, when pondering about which way >>> the balance tips. >>> > >>> > My reading of these discussions is that: >>> > >>> > - one person, or small group of persons, indeed highly >>> knowledgeable, consider fe80:1:: to be a violation of standards, >>> an RFC to be right, one OS to be right, manual config of LLs to be >>> wrong. >>> > >>> > - probably more persons, or at least several persons, consider >>> fe80:1:: to not be a violation of standards, some other OSs to be >>> right, manual config of LLs to be right, 'liberal in what you >>> accept', 'open minded'. >>> > >>> > (some person is in both categories). >>> > >>> > This is my reading of the discussion. >>> > >>> > Alex >>> > >>> > >>> > The question itself is nonsense to me, equal to >>> >> a question asking which OS has the glitch: an implementation >>> allowing >>> >> to send a packet with source=::1 outside of the node, or an >>> >> implementation that prevents it. >>> >> If you don't like to consider it to be a glitch, update >>> RFC4291. As >>> >> you've already seen it would be quite hard, but it's not >>> necessarily >>> >> impossible. Insisting a standard violation behavior is not a >>> glitch >>> >> because of the existence of the behavior is just a time wasting >>> >> effort. >>> >> -- >>> >> JINMEI, Tatuya >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> > ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> >>> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: about violation of standards Kerry Lynn
- about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Suresh Krishnan
- Re: about violation of standards Kerry Lynn
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Kerry Lynn
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards Fernando Gont
- Re: about violation of standards 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: about v… 神明達哉
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: about violation of standards 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Nick Hilliard
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: about v… Mark Smith
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- RE: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Philip Homburg
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: about violation of standards Brian E Carpenter
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Andrews
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards - security matte… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 神明達哉
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Ole Troan
- Re: about violation of standards Nick Hilliard
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Philip Homburg
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Ole Troan
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Andrews
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 Gyan Mishra
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Andrews
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs - prob… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Mark Smith
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Mark Smith
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Kerry Lynn
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: about violation of standards Erik Kline
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Reinventing Site-Locals (Re: easy to remember add… Mark Smith
- Re: Reinventing Site-Locals (Re: easy to remember… Mark Smith
- Re: Reinventing Site-Locals (Re: easy to remember… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Fernando Gont
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Brian Carpenter
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Ole Troan
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Fernando Gont
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Gyan Mishra
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change 神明達哉
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Bob Hinden
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Gyan Mishra
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Bob Hinden
- Re: Reinventing Site-Locals Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Tim Chown
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Bob Hinden
- Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Philip Homburg
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Philip Homburg
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Erik Kline
- Re: about violation of standards Erik Kline