Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > > Not to mention the late lamented /48 recommendation to ISPs. Again,
> > > nobody is trying to sabotage /64 as the norm for SLAAC networks, and
> > > nobody is trying to sabotage SLAAC as the norm for plug and play.
> >
> > I know that you're not *trying* to do that. I'm trying to make you
> > realize that by pushing for a non-fixed boundary you *are* doing it.
> >
> > As for "nobody" - it's not true that nobody is trying to do it. If you
> > read Job and Peter's statements carefully, you'll see that they are.
>
> That is quite the accusation.
>

I don't see any other interpretation of your statement "can expand the
routed network at the edges, in absence of PD" in these slides
<https://iepg.org/2017-03-27-ietf98/JobSnijders_IPv6_prefix_length_IEPG_Chicago_2017.pdf>.
Unless you mean that those extended networks are not going to be plug and
play.


> > Making it accurate for the remaining 0.1% is not worth removing the
> > text in the standard that stops operators like Peter being able to
> > claim that hosts should support addressing models that are bad for
> > their users.
>
> You realise that the above remarks come across as extremely judgemental?
> Who do you think you are to know what is good for all groups of users?
>

My apologies, I thought it was clear that I'm not talking about all users.
To clarify: I'm talking about users of general purpose client devices. My
statement that operators should not be able to claim that implementers of
those devices need to support addressing models that are bad for their
users. I stand by that statement. Right now those practices are not allowed
by the standards, and I'd like to keep it that way.


> It is painful to see you view operators as some kind of minority (a
> nuisance even?), and as such they don't need or deserve to be
> accommodated by standards.
>

Networking standards do not accommodate people, they specify the behaviour
of networking devices. So let's focus on the technical needs.

>From a technical perspective, the main desire I've heard from operators so
far is that they would like to use non-/64 prefix lengths on router
interfaces. It's not necessary to change the 64-bit boundary for that to be
allowed. Saying that the limitation does not cover manually-configured
addresses would meet that need.

As I've said many, many times before - if there are other problems that
need to be solved, let's start from those and design solutions for them.
Saying (as the draft does) that the 64-bit boundary "is the last remnant of
IPv6 classful addressing" might conceivably be accurate, but it says
nothing about which problems, if any, it causes, and thus says nothing
about what solutions we need.

It's clear what solutions the draft authors think we need, but unless we
come to consensus on that solution, that's not useful.