Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Wed, 01 March 2017 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 020F012953A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:08:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 HXlRCyfJP88b for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC0A912956F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CE7C76 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:08:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83eX0HkJi6Ka for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:08:06 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com (mail-vk0-f71.google.com [209.85.213.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6716C6E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:08:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id n125so7846011vke.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:08:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NiJwwyJwcVnLdJ599GC0H3HBVEhBdexyC/yNvJMPy3o=; b=XKSfyeZOgrQ8Ewl+dLweqXPrY134IUQknMWyQlSYPpdLa++5vVMMNu4NPqOXV1goFm xcPUOqQcPbTaXeMVNm3FuiQQVaoNjy6s9l3EXmZFQcgJvyC1R6xZLoEO8y+oAKRHgEeW bAizL0MQm7O3+KE+4/7uVwR3yA0HIFlyZ2QJ53iA5+vy6MrEnOHPKdJ0LUGCgItJhnBv UJ8SZAUxp5URaeGqOti6CwbEqSO2W+Id1LtbOO9Vv+GKBhTb7v844G+PA19eRdToUq50 9tQqxQGWBNF1TLejuAMUAw3woIuDP2lwiIOoojdR8RjHy553dhQ6zkFGqe13R1VCQPyW gPuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NiJwwyJwcVnLdJ599GC0H3HBVEhBdexyC/yNvJMPy3o=; b=ZUzk+1DfxFh/0AIXn+07rhunyejqSxmUsu5wQKDnu7cZMg/UNKiXvecQXsrMKPOqCA SyajAD8MtPfWOnJ3WbMsOe5MVNR3HFHo57j52mC8zxLwpXbXhVQAg/bF3CvcFp8UGcEr tqQcfJ8O1lEitWdNc4g2HfoIB6GsMq4Z8yC6F7LLWgMc7TKB35q/NFJmuS832oCm/PoL bghonw4wpNNGj7bw2eL3EDB/3vZczhoJ5LhMa6f/2CPuojJtHMqaJB98DlUCMbRjUe5+ Ep2mWUKx1EKKPCdtlEqzlqmGiSZqGtKv1wTq2x5uaqWG95jjJ3CeC9k9xNOm23cFcX6x fWzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nTnS8yP3uN5LbT0Uqk5gJOYXfkL1BxjeGAl5nNGh1u5pbopieVV88WvxVDtPwVxhC7TCT/9WGnNl7WszcT4jk+wmhu4yvJjRQp7M45ddUqcA+k0Dg45R3K1Vg7XsL6ruSJQRYFs9ryK8w=
X-Received: by 10.176.5.136 with SMTP id e8mr4241434uae.108.1488380885140; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:08:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.176.5.136 with SMTP id e8mr4241421uae.108.1488380884909; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:08:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.89.71 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:08:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau1C9zpHLmx_V5764D4vu4wZKzQ86Nd_UL7kZdzNWCTuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAKD1Yr0qk_njAGnex_FZsYisCVw=eM8hXTr1v+wqvcfX_09wiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0ohz3Wp55bs+eoFvSyoUjuKfjzKGSAsJS3wUt3z7TGtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2N-fv3o9o4807m_fbMktjC6hq28sMZhfECKg5cbb4g6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1C9zpHLmx_V5764D4vu4wZKzQ86Nd_UL7kZdzNWCTuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 09:08:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0AqtP7YqMSHke5nCzEPmBj+WT10pKKWN6+sHb_hiwXGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c124874eff3540549acadd0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mVz_BPt4yIlbnQCRr2zM6S_cPBY>
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:08:09 -0000
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:36 AM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:33 AM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote: >> >>> However many OSes also allow configurations other than just /64, is this >>>>> OK? Is that how RFC4291 should be interpreted? Honestly, I don't read it >>>>> that way, >>>>> >>>> >>>> IMO the important question is not "should an OS refuse to configure a >>>> /65 when manually configuring an address". I think the much more important >>>> questions are, "can the OS assume that it can use the full 64 bits to form >>>> an IID", and "will this link ever run out of IPv6 addresses". The answers >>>> to those should be yes and no. >>>> >>> >>> I don't disagree with your answers, and you may not think the manual >>> config question is important, but others seem too. >>> >> >> FWIW I wouldn't oppose an exception for manually-configured addresses on >> routers. >> > > I think manually configuration should be OPTION for all hosts , and I'd > RECOMMEND it for routers, but i wouldn't REQUIRE or even necessary > RECOMMEND it for general host. It would be my personal preference that all > host have a way to be manually configured, but OPTIONAL is good enough for > the standard I think. > > >> And you don't have too. But, your saying no one else can ever have a >>> reason to do that, and I'm not so sure about that. And something on the >>> other side of the Internet can't make any assumption about what I'm doing >>> anyway. You are saying it can't be done because the 64 bit boundary is >>> even more important than CIDR and addresses on the other side of the >>> Internet are supposed to be opaque. Where as I disagree, CIDR and the >>> opaqueness of addresses across the Internet are more fundamental properties >>> than 64 bit boundary. Which is why I say the 64 bit boundary is really a >>> RECOMMENDATION. And CIDR and the opaqueness of addresses across the >>> Internet are REQUIREMENTS. >>> >> >> Let's see if there is common ground here. I agree that routers should >> forward on arbitrary prefix lengths. It's probably reasonable that hosts >> should not make assumptions about other host's IP addresses (except if they >> are on the same subnet). But I think a host should be allowed to assume >> that its own subnet and its own IID are 64 bits long. >> > > A host has to actually look at the RA to determine it, and can't just > assume. I'd concede that an RA set to and other than /64 with the "a" flag > set SHOULD be considered a misconfiguration, but it is possible to set RAs > with other than /64, especially if you don't set the "A" flag. And if you > manually set set the 128 address and it's within the range defined by the > RA then the host SHOULD use it as excepted. Furthermore, I think a host > configured with an 128 address via DHCPv6 SHOULD work much the same way, > but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on that. > > Now to me that says RAs with /64 are REQUIRED iff (if and only if) the "A" > flag is set. Otherwise RAs with /64 are RECOMMENDED, but other lengths are > allowed. Also you MAY manually configure a host with a subnet length in > addition to manually configuring a 128 address, and only in the case were a > host is manually configured with a 128 bit address and there is not > associated manually configured subnet length or there is no associated RA > is it ever ok to assume /64. > > Another thing I think we should avoid is to remove the fixed 64 barrier >>>> and open the door to having this debate again and again, once for every new >>>> IPv6-over-foo document and once for every new address configuration >>>> protocol (today we have SLAAC and DHCPv6, who knows what we'll have in the >>>> future). >>>> >>> >>> Which is why it time to get this right and saying it is now and forever >>> 64 isn't right. >>> >> >> Do you agree that a fixed boundary is useful or not? For 20 years the >> standards have guaranteed that 64 bits of IIDs were available to hosts that >> wanted to use them. If we make that barrier mobile, there will be no >> guarantee in the standards any more. Who should be allowed to set the >> boundary? An IPv6-over-foo document? An address configuration technology >> such as SLAAC? An ISP that wants to charge you $1 for every /128 you use? >> > > I'll agree there is a 64 bit boundary, I don't conceded it's fixed, it's > only been considered fixed but cause we errantly allow the word required in > RFC4291 and its predecessors, CIDR and the opaqueness of addresses across > the Internet are more fundamental principles than the 64 bit boundary. The > 64 bit boundary is a convenience, a very important convenience, a very > highly RECOMMENDED convenience, but only a convenience. It doesn't > override CIDR and the opaqueness of addresses across the Internet. > I'll add; It is so highly RECOMMENDED and so convenient we deluded ourselves into thinking it was actually a REQUIREMENT, that actually overdid the more important concepts of CIDR and the opaqueness of addresses across the Internet. The idea that the 64 bit boundary is fixed is a delusion, an appealing delusion, none the less a delusion. > Thanks. > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952> > =============================================== > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
- Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Peter Hessler
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Job Snijders
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Peter Hessler
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Pierre Pfister
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mark Smith
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Iván Arce
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Job Snijders
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mark Smith
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt james woodyatt
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt james woodyatt
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt james woodyatt
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Christopher Morrow
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt mohamed.boucadair
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Peter Hessler
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt mohamed.boucadair
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Sander Steffann
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt mohamed.boucadair
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Christopher Morrow
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt james woodyatt
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Christopher Morrow
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Pierre Pfister
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Christopher Morrow
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Christopher Morrow
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Xing Li
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Xing Li
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mark Smith
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mark Smith
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Philip Homburg
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt james woodyatt
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Greg Hankins
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt sthaug
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt sthaug
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Greg Hankins
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt sthaug
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt otroan
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt otroan
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Dan Lüdtke
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt sthaug
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt David Farmer
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Iván Arce
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Iván Arce
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mark Smith
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Iván Arce
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Erik Kline
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Fernando Gont
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Tore Anderson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Iván Arce
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Tore Anderson
- Consensus? (was Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-… Wilco Baan Hofman
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Tore Anderson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Sander Steffann
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Nick Hilliard
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mark Andrews
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Job Snijders
- RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt mohamed.boucadair
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt otroan
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Ca By
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Fred Baker
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Philip Homburg
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Christian Huitema
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt 神明達哉
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Simon Hobson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Simon Hobson
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt otroan
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.tx… otroan
- Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt Alexandre Petrescu