Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

sthaug@nethelp.no Thu, 23 February 2017 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
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 3C60312A130; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 dXqJ83-t5Uch; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:12:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B2712A12D; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:12:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (bizet.nethelp.no [IPv6:2001:8c0:9e04:500::1]) by bizet.nethelp.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B6EE6065; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:12:54 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:12:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20170223.091254.74715533.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: lorenzo@google.com
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1yRTUPVTTicaTkA8fAFxHiHxdLG8ZzEHjCUDDzKg5zJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr1W+AVt4Dixo9epB5VazxBsVMD+mrshwaE=n7SuX6eGDw@mail.gmail.com> <5ce34926-6bde-6410-9b1e-3f61e48e9a1d@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1yRTUPVTTicaTkA8fAFxHiHxdLG8ZzEHjCUDDzKg5zJg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/kGJZlsj9AGkZVtUj-tCZm3ev3lI>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@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 08:12:58 -0000

> > I'm sorry, I'm wondering which word in my recent message that said
> > "I'm not aware of any generally available running code that will
> > be changed in even one instruction by the final text - that is indeed
> > a requirement for advancement to Internet Standard."
> > is hard to understand.
> 
> Help he understand, then. There is widely-deployed code that assumes that
> the interface ID is 64 and does not work on anything other than 64 bit
> prefix lengths. Currently that code is correct on all unicast space. If you
> change RFC 4291, won't that code be incorrect?

Since there are plenty of addresses with non 64bit IIDs in use, isn't
that code by definition *already* broken? I don't see how changing the
4291bis document to reflect operational reality makes the code any
more broken.

Steinar Haug, AS2116