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

Peter Hessler <> Fri, 24 February 2017 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A7812957E for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:22:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-tKdpzfsNbD for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F806129421 for <>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/0 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: phessler) by (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 <>
To: Christopher Morrow <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: james woodyatt <>, 6man WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> wrote:
:> On Feb 23, 2017, at 05:40, Peter Hessler <> 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

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.

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