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

Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> Fri, 24 February 2017 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <phessler@theapt.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 44A7812957E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:22:27 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_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 y-tKdpzfsNbD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gir.theapt.org (gir.theapt.org [81.209.183.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F806129421 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gir.theapt.org (unknown [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/0 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: phessler) by gir.theapt.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E524278983; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:22:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:22:23 +0100
From: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Message-ID: <20170224082223.GN5069@gir.theapt.org>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <CAL9jLaZ2h2mLYvANesMNj25ipq8QrTcmXsVLxGQMkME4WtpEow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZ2h2mLYvANesMNj25ipq8QrTcmXsVLxGQMkME4WtpEow@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mvL0t8XO-JaER7p2aWOgFsP--ac>
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:22:27 -0000

On 2017 Feb 23 (Thu) at 22:19:24 -0500 (-0500), Christopher Morrow wrote:
:picking out one messge, not particularly picking ON one message...
:
:On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:57 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
:
:> On Feb 23, 2017, at 05:40, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>; wrote:
:> >
:> > Restricting all subnets to The One True Size(tm) of /64 is utterly
:> > ridiculous.  Sure, that may be an artificial limitation of SLAAC and
:> > various other technologies, but *those* can have limitations.
:> >
:> > Limiting it inside the entire specification is even stupider of an idea
:> > than still supporting Classful networks.
:> > […]
:>
:> It would help if those objecting to the promotion of RFC 4291 to Standard,
:> unless the requirement for subnet prefixes to be generally /64 (except
:> where noted by standards track documents), would please remember that SLAAC
:> is only one of several technologies dependent on it. That’s why this draft
:> now includes a reference to RFC 7421, which lists a non-exhaustive list of
:> several things that are broken on subnets where prefixes longer than /64
:> are used.
:>
:>
:there seems to be a general sense, in reading the many threads now about
:this -bis draft, that we can only have one way. In the proposed changed
:text, ~150 messages back and 2 threads over, there was the callout for
:applications which require 64bit subnet masks ALONG with "if you really
:know what you are doing, feel free to use a different subnet mask".
:
:I feel like folk are stuck in the 1 or the other camp, and that isn't
:helpful to this discussion.
:
:Why can't we have both?
:

I would be perfectly happy if the _IPv6 Protocol_ itself did not have
any limitations on subnet sizes, but if SLAAC and other protocols had
limitations.

Those limitations can be described in other documents, and won't block
other usage.


:As  to age of text and other things, I look at this -bis and the review
:here as the final step to making 'ipv6' a real standard and not a 'proposed
:standard' correct? So before we stamp things 'DONE' making sure all eyes
:are dotted and tees are crossed surely seems sane and rational.
:
:-chris

-- 
A day for firm decisions!!!!!  Or is it?