Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 10 November 2017 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD29A126D85; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dzasXfAoHAU7; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35CE1200E5; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j28so5285159pfk.8; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eVFT0yzBXevPwbm9xUvZphg0YpNigtHwCSWrFqWLd40=; b=eYWEosD21iBegEEN+BQTh/ufhVipcFtfVeKgkub+r8+kDqb2VyFjoB2iufONlsm264 2xMzlnpz7xTZa1qsOBgqGCCaUWLZHlkK8kELG88XOSOUzBVYYPTiGiENcihArLxOLkhy p/maU+ypv3Gv0zfu25KWkPSfdiNXcsFZ+/6M4Ax/jWa0yj+GroySjsUGM4uFxirvVoPI 3cMJJruTqO0BKfb6aaTT0G/6Fiotknds6Ukm+kGlvDf+XMxZ6S+mJyBkYb6hn34vaohv A3MjW6vjTfrx/PsOyzyXwUvpJ801spv1QzeVu+W69tDLgA9duvDKXzGVhVDa9d3vQnpU 68jA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eVFT0yzBXevPwbm9xUvZphg0YpNigtHwCSWrFqWLd40=; b=OOxofxZWOWUUYUsqTEyl2L7gfL9+kybeWka3CiNX/CDsDZWL0Todl01C6lPonncLYY tokZJ2JL7IqAyY5VyZokEuQDvcHrbxfdTuFEEhLtV7Rm25258ZSR9fNQgQC6pVJqRCHX kebHabfHR8dPJY4zABBUe+PQfzW2HxAdNNgzh26lgZu7AiIpm1+yXLRy70aKVKT8xqk+ Kbhm1zZLvAmle3H/pgTYxF8J0N+Arsktg7Pwr3xViDI6NocuF4k+6+YIS1WrE98p+2bB Q9+OSZjW39bBFJ+8aCdutxkvJpPRfR/fwZc4S+951VQf9AUcXuVDaOvlw6G04UCyl6S6 B2wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX61SWqxTFfoUaLk92ks8Wr/yoTI+KUdtP6z3XUdmHGCE7a0a0et x0da48HEytja0R/j+FK7jaTDoA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ0SwrLb1LD1rPjHkh/ziqMAk9er3Ys6s67yFWWUW1oujx8ccLTRt6z8fOqZX1tkgakW8wwDw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i1mr1720885pgs.436.1510352797834; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 19sm21640642pfj.154.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Stateful SLAAC (draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host)
To: Ole Troan <>, Fernando Gont <>
Cc:, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:26:40 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:26:40 -0000

On 11/11/2017 09:42, Ole Troan wrote:
>> 1) My comment to the list was essentially arguing that this document
>> contains a protocol specification, and such part is not suitable. I
>> think it should be easy to converge on something regarding this one:
>> Can anyone (you, for instance), provide a definition of what is a
>> protocol, and the run this document through such definition and figure
>> out if it fits or it doesn't?
> A protocol is a system of rules that allow _two_ or more nodes to communicate.
> The protocol specifies the syntax, semantics and so on (1).
> A protocol specification does not specify only the wire format.
> 'unique-ipv6-prefix' does not specify changes in the wire-format, nor its semantics.
> It only requires implementation change on one 'side' of the protocol, namely on the routers.
> From that perspective I think you can argue that this is not a protocol specification.

I agree with that, and other versions of the same argument. (That also
answers Fernando's message directed at me, so I won't waste more bits.)

More on the philosophy side of the argument, WG Charters are a tool to
allow the chairs and AD to control mission creep. They aren't sacred
texts. So IMHO the real question is not whether this is strictly speaking
a protocol extension, but whether it's a useful thing for the IETF to