Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:39:43PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Most people (99.99%) simply unwrap their new device, ignore the
> > "quick start" guide, and switch it on. There is an enormous market
> > incentive for that to work 100% of the time, which is an enormous
> > incentive to stick with /64.
> 
> Your premise is correct but your conclusion is wrong. Yes, there is an
> enormous incentive for things to work 100% of the time. But that does
> not mean stick to /64. Quite the opposite - it means "work regardless
> of the prefix length on the network". Before you disagree with me,
> observe the fact that most implementations work on Peter's network,
> today, even though Peter's network is in complete violation of RFC
> 4291.
> 
> > Not to mention the late lamented /48 recommendation to ISPs. Again,
> > nobody is trying to sabotage /64 as the norm for SLAAC networks, and
> > nobody is trying to sabotage SLAAC as the norm for plug and play.
> 
> I know that you're not *trying* to do that. I'm trying to make you
> realize that by pushing for a non-fixed boundary you *are* doing it.
> 
> As for "nobody" - it's not true that nobody is trying to do it. If you
> read Job and Peter's statements carefully, you'll see that they are.

That is quite the accusation.

> > I agree. But at the same time we need to be honest in our specs.
> > RFC4291 does not describe the deployed architecture accurately,
> > which is why we have to fix it if we're serious about Internet
> > Standard status.
> 
> That's not true for any value of "accurate" that is meaningful in the
> real world. I'd argue that RFC 4291 (with the exception made in 6164),
> is accurate for at least 99.9% of links on the public Internet.

Even if it is as low as 0.1%, has it ever occurred to you that that
small number might serve a majority of IPv6 users in non-trivial
matters? For example, their ability to reach each other? It is a shame
to see such blatant disregard for this group of IPv6 users.

I've shown before that 6164 accomodates some, but not all cases for both
historic and pragmatic reasons. 6164 does not solve all operational
challenges.

> Making it accurate for the remaining 0.1% is not worth removing the
> text in the standard that stops operators like Peter being able to
> claim that hosts should support addressing models that are bad for
> their users.

You realise that the above remarks come across as extremely judgemental?
Who do you think you are to know what is good for all groups of users?
I still simply argue that nobody can know what is needed in every
context in every situation, pretending otherwise would be folly.

It is painful to see you view operators as some kind of minority (a
nuisance even?), and as such they don't need or deserve to be
accommodated by standards.

Regards,

Job