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

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 24 February 2017 09:12 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 4BDE912965B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:12:59 -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 3f01-qC3KmJV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:12:57 -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 680CE12962F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4C94C; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:12:55 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1487927573; bh=XRJxy0nZPtF4C9jFCBe 7aOce9SwwgmCTq9j0QAftSwQ=; b=Wt4aITnNCm1HmXO0nb7M510cLeP/UomLc8c /s4ziiK1z5gjYUPQDk9IUIj4y7ezdrMydDU7lsXpGToLVIcoGUXcZJZWMvq+M3qq Ej89C3Om53jMAvod+HsnIVnvrpB2xKJ/IAxKi7wlphg24FuzOKmhu17BbR+5BHtc oje96Z54=
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 sAVtNCD7rhVS; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:12:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2003:8:27:8700:8c3b:4a8:aef8:5fdd] (unknown [IPv6:2003:8:27:8700:8c3b:4a8:aef8:5fdd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE4144B; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:12:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <69B4E9EB-27DE-4BF0-A502-FD18CEA84FDD@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4295F36-2D93-4F6C-8703-4FECF5AF0304"; 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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:13:08 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3-3-zH9P6SHR4nYJWKfXT-8+XkRpReD3fkaXUsn1WZDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <58AF6429.70809@foobar.org> <902276E9-0521-4D4E-A42B-C45E64763896@google.com> <58AF726A.3040302@foobar.org> <CAKD1Yr3-3-zH9P6SHR4nYJWKfXT-8+XkRpReD3fkaXUsn1WZDw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qvEFjSVV0IhGm6OudxyapryjPYM>
Cc: 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 09:12:59 -0000

Hi,

> But even more importantly - even if router vendors and operators ignore this requirement, host software and host implementations can rely - and, in the 20 years since this was standardized, have been written to rely - on this standard to provide useful functionality to their users.
> 
> If we remove the 64-bit boundary we are actually changing the balance between the needs of network operators and host operators (a.k.a "users"). That's a big change, and it's not something we should do just because "classful addressing is bad". I don't want a future where my ISP gives my home network or my mobile device a /120 and I have to count myself lucky because it's better than having a single IPv4 address.

This is indeed my greatest fear if we go down that path. It's exactly the reason I'm so torn (as you have seen in my previous messages) on this topic. I want a world where consenting adults can use whatever prefix length they need, but where the standard (read this as meaning both "standards-based" and "default") design still uses /64. As we have seen getting the RFC text right is hard...

Cheers,
Sander