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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 00:22 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 C09BB129CC6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:22:13 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lXMEN8DHT8nv for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com (mail-pf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]) (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 592F1129CC0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c193so543253pfb.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:22:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ijl7EUiy+ddrKAAihxBcj/CrQZRgpeSDAhk8iIFD3Vw=; b=c9ku830hCmyGbr3hGD4JWphNc9fafJx47TeLBhj0CWhOTCnmyGnowMzQ/KrjqyOiHR lbWCyZ2bkhWgLaYEBXqV69LPO8YvrcgGYbss3dirM1xdkckxycmNZye7mxKXrAnjM+tp 9FBxxUTHyeJJQDaDJ7yF1bX017sp32RmHr0k7EiLhstm7oqtO/0b6if51nL/5mBzKbMG JEV748YM0x96Fzkim99Vw+Hinq6mWcODPaRf4b3j8l7DsVVTHga+vOQJzbbESUwBaWKa ItLFpdTKsyDK2heixefX6LQCTe6mksiDoGQQRkTXuGl8wsVivmJ8qxk7biOPJQHVzkAM TerQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ijl7EUiy+ddrKAAihxBcj/CrQZRgpeSDAhk8iIFD3Vw=; b=d1rBUmWkXMjkoA0yT6YDaueCLJBLRlVEBvKx3+O+OYZ9Y1q30HfOI6AwMUFipnp3p2 VxJGPdC3s/WZ57o/FSOZydlEaw1b5t0qx3XpRQzIHhZd8qL/rhR/vpMlsJ29NniHF8Oq h92S166enawmcGif0FUJastGsghg47dRyPlN4DftbKApjRgLQZPtaK53C1RpEKZrGBYq bybZFludEUzBQd07xDV7I7bN0i3+Dytxl4G+xhlZg6yU5GpaHDPS4MwAlvUM6m0uEiRL 3U7XCq4lPMLh8Sf6PuZQbVCVhNXFggnDg46c8xCVhaj2TbSpsaYfrO9YrMBmxNfeQHMg q2Nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kj34W/K9lxAQ602bV+yrVc79D8dLL6yJqCQGA1+W+16/tbd3M+uyT+/J0VG2cC0A==
X-Received: by 10.99.36.7 with SMTP id k7mr51596725pgk.199.1487895731857; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:22:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4b1c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4b1c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x15sm11783668pgo.56.2017.02.23.16.22.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:22:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
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> <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <8e582feb-0e93-d548-0d27-da6744877084@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:22:18 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F7C230DE-4759-4B78-ABF2-6799F85B3C62@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/t2ktNLbc10_4--bhwu9EJ2Rx8Ms>
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 00:22:14 -0000

James,
On 24/02/2017 13:05, james woodyatt wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2017, at 15:38, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
>> james woodyatt wrote:
>>> Hmm, since RFC 6164 is a Standards Track document, it’s already
>>> covered as a legitimate exception under the text I already proposed,
>>> which seemed mostly well received, except by people who seem to think
>>> it’s not enough to recognize standard IETF exceptions to the /64
>>> subnet prefix requirement.
>>
>> What's your advice to vendors then?  To disable all interface netmasks
>> except /64 and /127?  Or to operators?
> 
> I am aware of at least one major vendor, whose devices in the field number well into the billions, devices that simply do not accept any subnet prefix other than /64. Seems to work fine for them because none of their devices are intended to be deployed in any of the standard scenarios where prefixes other than /64 are recommended by IETF.
> 
> My advice to vendors is pretty simple.
> 
> 	1. Always support /64 subnets in general usage scenarios.
> 	2. Assume misconfiguration in general usage scenarios where subnets are not /64.

That is terribly bad advice, but is fortunately ignored by most vendors, who
know what CIDR means.

    Brian