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

otroan@employees.org Wed, 01 March 2017 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 10EB2129495 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:04:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 soDD0IkUORUD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D071293DF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2017 11:04:04 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856CED788B; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:04:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=64DFbhTtgJtNsB4ioLplK97mFa4=; b= UkzMHLVLlE+yvq9d0W1Hi6b6MuiyQejgreoHXLx36rffEMV2Dd3p13/mkEd/DVa5 SdlbvACZd6MpDodhQ8kPAieMtvpikuYrBbY4SMlRN+Dgl/vkVnHEdRAJSSmAVtIV JkdRQ6HSXVR3EWowB7OubbfNg3cZ64BOoFbRAhP2YNE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=Tutgfcfo1hxfsLcQYt9+8Hy hNS07Blur/6jpWCVPLjpU8yki75WQwtf8s/wQKqRDRe7nv69gEzp+iNLVGwkM38k 1GfckUZdtQyO6D6VDbQbQn2tx2J4yjFT9mGjuwYe4ksWXn7ZVHPQUEISV0qXuzJ0 1MQaG+C7djqP1gopuFdQ=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F08FD788A; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 03:04:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD326919A0C2; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:04:02 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <4E8CA778-9DFA-4B4E-88B1-ED9DF1AB982E@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_94390720-1F50-4F4C-A135-7A4DCF397204"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:04:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20170301.115819.78792371.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
References: <CAKD1Yr3tHm5x29w4L5KtKi7PqDHRxkPr6i9mJMtHLaPc2eM2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.110927.104116623.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAKD1Yr2-ai=S_2XKYpcHQu+Tk5CYH+aV2fU7i8bytFaWpt=kNA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.115819.78792371.sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/p3XqYuKV7Xi9qT_HvlSeHLL0HMg>
Cc: 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 11:04:06 -0000

> On 1 Mar 2017, at 11:58, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> 
>>>> FWIW I wouldn't oppose an exception for manually-configured addresses on
>>>> routers.
>>> 
>>> But you would oppose it for hosts? Then I don't think we're any
>>> further.
>>> 
>> 
>> Not sure about that. I suppose it also depends on what manual means. If
>> it's literally just operators configuring them manually by editing
>> configuration files that's probably fine, but that's not what you want to
>> do, is it?
> 
> Yes, that is exactly what I want to do. I want to be able to use the
> ifconfig command to set an IPv6 address with a netmask different from
> 64, and to have the corresponding config file entry take effect when
> the box is booted or the service restarted.

And that clearly always have been permitted. E.g. how would you otherwise configure a /128 loopback.
I agree that current text have always been at best ambiguous on this point.

Best regards,
Ole