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

Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Sun, 26 February 2017 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
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 C2E9B129551 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kbuuvtoxqNrp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp38.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.204.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817D2129556 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [114.254.44.112]) by app5 (Coremail) with SMTP id DsxvpgBncID5ILJYgD2cAQ--.27477S2; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:27:38 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <58B220F9.3000602@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:27:37 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
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> <304f89c9ec7c4931b3d854ff1d24f912@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <a784a68a-7e0a-aa75-0466-75556847b91b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a784a68a-7e0a-aa75-0466-75556847b91b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070304060306090300080809"
X-CM-TRANSID: DsxvpgBncID5ILJYgD2cAQ--.27477S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7uFyruF18Xw1DKF4DtF4UCFg_yoW8GFWUpF Z3GrsxXr4UJF17Jrs7Aw10qr1Ut348tw45Xr1ftr48Grs0kF4xtr17t3yvqFy5Jry8Xr1j qr1jvr15Gw1UArJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUqCb7Iv0xC_tr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_ Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWxJVW8Jr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r 4UJwAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40E57IF67AEF4xIwI1lYx0E2Ix0cI8I cVAFwI0_JrI_JrylYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjc xG0xvEwIxGrwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41lx2IqxVAqx4xG 67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r126r1DMI IYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E 14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxV WUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvj7U U6p_UUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/d_5GkKfteejTZ8hhF9SuiCnwwnw>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:28:24 -0000

Brian E Carpenter 写道:
> Bert,
> On 25/02/2017 08:10, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>   
>> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt
>>
>>     
>>> I know there are operating systems with billions of units in the field
>>> today that do exactly this because RFC 4291 and its predecessors have for
>>> years given them clear license to do so, and I don’t want to see the
>>> publication of I-D.ietf-6man-rfc4291bis as RFC come to remove this license
>>> as a side effect of promoting IPv6 to full Standard category.
>>>       
>> But this is exactly why RFC 4291-bis has to get this right. The unicast address space 2000::/3 is the only one that should be so constrained. We need to nip this problem in the bud.
>>     
>
> I don't think that specific IANA-delegated prefixes belong in this document.
> And a few weeks ago I suggested limiting the /64 rule to currently delegated
> address space, and was loudly told "No!". What we need to get across
> is the notion that this is a parameter, not a constant, and today's
> setting of the parameter is 64. I strongly suspect that the document editor
> has got that message and will come up with some new text.
>   

+1, xing

>     Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>