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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 24 February 2017 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 4C3C61293EE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:11:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 o_0NILdby41s for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E4F1129609 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:11:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1OBBpeg015586 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:11:51 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Message-ID: <58B014F6.2040400@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:11:50 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.10 (Macintosh/20170123)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.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>
In-Reply-To: <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/iKGey_KBuGzUpedkjCsMoGwISgo>
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:11:59 -0000

james woodyatt wrote:
> In general usage scenarios? Yes. I am. I have a device in my pocket that
> does exactly that. Everyone in my family does. Those devices would not
> work very well if the /64 subnet requirement were dropped and operators
> felt free to ignore it, and adapting them to function on subnets with
> longer prefixes would entail making those devices less functional.

which is fine - mobile devices are important and numerous and good
candidates for the sort of interface that the /64 requirement was trying
to cater for.  But they are by no means the only type of device which
runs ipv6.

Let me be more specific then: are you proposing that vendors write code
to allow or disallow interface subnets which aren't /64 (or /127)? This
is a binary choice; a vendor needs to choose one way or another.

Nick