Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - interpretations of the "sum"

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Tue, 07 March 2017 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 338231294EA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:38:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 IhFU2ShpwHOs for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 49C951294B8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165D94A; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:38:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:message-id:date:date:in-reply-to:from:from :subject:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-type:received :received; s=mail; t=1488904697; bh=aqx7bd/I6+bNO7C2fiuKXoK86vYM QJpaqJbgFaMz2xQ=; b=hdcFp/zN4WnSIKIONjAeS2Dxn8h6GcOlvwb5n71p/ue6 tGjIaloYvKNKpcg876a+116EeZ0KsrlM2ab4XWaP+aG/h2H8gSaPUPxiXOYusY2W LSiiTeFdkXzqUxbZMglePZbr1Nu3x6hdd1aqgvx4o9y17purfDkjorjFUMSaTVU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id pZLsraidOlmB; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:38:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:71ae:765:e775:ae6] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:9300:71ae:765:e775:ae6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9900B49; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:38:16 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_563F1C91-E1EF-48C9-B956-845494D2B6AE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - interpretations of the "sum"
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <b86627e7-3668-304f-f12e-71ad3bfd6f7a@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:38:15 +0100
Message-Id: <1F674D50-1C89-444C-A617-C528951F80EC@steffann.nl>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <D6D5B476-7F21-4F49-A81D-C2A11C30ADEC@google.com> <453e5b4160514907bc1bb822770e0cac@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <ABE47051-FBFC-460F-89B0-FFD451410F7B@google.com> <m1cjviu-0000EYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5BC57F0E-50FD-4452-853F-A08291C91EB1@google.com> <m1ck5mu-0000GaC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfpE-NWwG12S4CXM+ZnHdHHH31-y+_+pYhuCuq2FtqZ4w@mail.gmail.com> <6f532a72-a142-5d84-f351-c38cba5230d! d@gmail.c om> <5773AF65-4E7E-43B6-BCB1-26F6E9CD3C60@steffann.nl! > <fdc3fa b6-fdcb-f390-e6ea-d9e49edacf52@gmail.com> <7A10E8D9-02F4-4D1C-B422-86ACCAABCB38@steffann.nl> <b86627e7-3668-304f-f1 2e-71ad3bfd6f7a@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qbUmPF8fKdRhmusGTUTcUMsB1-s>
Cc: 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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:38:26 -0000

Hi,

>> In step 3 the N rightmost bits of that are overwritten with the
>> N-bits-long IID.
> 
> YEs, that covers the 64bit rightmost part.  But that does not say what
> to put between /10 and /64.

Yes it does. In whatever way you read it those bits contain 0.

I'm going to stop this thread, this discussion is going nowhere... You seem to have made up your mind that you *want* to interpret the RFCs in a way that doesn't make sense, and it's not my job to fix that...

Cheers,
Sander