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

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
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 BB6451296B0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:20:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 15S1G8IJCr3a for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B73129862 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id s186so21006410qkb.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:20:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XVLxR4IxqUEIIz8sEFEaVn3KydPoMoXzup8WDxS3RSg=; b=t/PJatbw2ikiQqiLoXrP1hQjmUt2rsJGDXXr3DbuDAOUUrBkn9842rf/y4OgxtQ9ew FfwW+Ms0edgAAOZzDBy/xSZ1QYWd7jL9zAjNrAmP6T+lAXDdRna9nApyWF3BkSC1NtXQ A4OxjlLF8nhzzTWIeFvE/EdoPGxfp6XfC4PMa/MMLcOrvX6cdWJr7bORAGLAN7bpLBJj 10uqdDmr0+rZutvPMNb4Z8AIyRvSCeJEGENA5+g0hjzvDC0uMR3P3VrACpoY4hKLqFSY kNEyfJtP9obzhmwaFZbFjcv3KYmVeAyzHx5qrzz/e/hPrmA92BSvalCbFRK6rOiQ0oho rI7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XVLxR4IxqUEIIz8sEFEaVn3KydPoMoXzup8WDxS3RSg=; b=qaL5ibLWGUHvDqU7Nf1RyUTICfiemlto+vvkQ10eQ+5kOle8nHytUYID12D5pHGQ+v V+9rpydxOHuybnkI5rUawHFHtHL2JLhjlB4Yc306OpVHOOSNYCh0/QumTUZ2LJ9q8Icu gjnGZIVeba1FdjA3dATafC+zm05NFHfWzR/3h6QtasOJ1k3viAoHez4Oz6jNbDl3H0Ts 6E8s+hhYZqhKf6CmLpUIDs1fjpl7gboBtM+FmcH5qAc8MTuXqzSTgQQYGgLlEnlk7tJr 0UDZinu1Oj2ocKRalzSFB19O7+CoofZIocZrJgEsv7zgiBU8us8kp3BqWgJZJD+0v4HK jxRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ndyJLtjnPcPa+yfEGBvumVd3GFvBgVVBnjwYiZvpAsdEZwF8UIP1BcdbGiK3012a0fTlS3ZlwgMC/95g==
X-Received: by 10.55.18.144 with SMTP id 16mr1216959qks.5.1487949622888; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:20:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.91.71 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:20:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <998c29ba-64a6-2827-eb3d-f1e9a7b68b38@gmail.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> <998c29ba-64a6-2827-eb3d-f1e9a7b68b38@gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:20:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLab_DHwA+=CN3w-Q7_kzE4xf=iSYXb4uB5Fb4_-k0kWOnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ad64ab75183054948444c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/r_spwQDW9IJZwxatXd91GhxisMM>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <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 15:20:26 -0000

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>; wrote:

>
>
> Le 23/02/2017 à 23:50, james woodyatt a écrit :
>
>>
>> Some participants seem to be promising they will continue objecting
>> to the promotion of RFC 4291 to full Standard until the /64 subnet
>> prefix length requirement is dropped entirely. I think those
>>
>
I don't think this is the case, at all.

I hear job/randy/nick/stefan/michael all saying: "Hey /64 for SLAAC and the
like is great, but keep in mind I need to be able to configure longer
prefixes.. so don't make /64 (and /127) the ONLY options"

The reasoning for the 'not the only options' text is precisely because
we've all run into vendors that made poor assumptions about ipv6 prefix
lengths over time :( We (or I at least) noted that 'classful' constructs
don't survive long term, so avoiding them where we know they aren't helpful
is a great step forward.


> I agree.  Advancement should be pursued.  But dont drop the objections.
>

I agree that we need to finalize this standard, but... do want to make sure
I'm not boxed into a corner :)