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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 B12291297C5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:14:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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=google.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 6EN5-nlLn65s for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:14:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (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 94AA71296D2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:14:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id c32so22354664uac.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:14:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Sw88zqesgg9maNMT0mT7UsZz2DcuJF7FP/wauPI7+r4=; b=pyqXLVWC8h0yUPnV16cARH3NXc2/YjNC8nqLQu2snL7Jelr0PCt7vGivDtq4X5rO1r KRWlue0eAcOuz4MolDfwT8LH6A7iQvQD9MT3uiwyRS9H7pvv48KzobeoPZwUmn/J492g pzI8GAPyMRg8r5OQZeACOtPFoN3LrhCb6hA4cjn9sTJn5S+XNz7sQTlOboiN+8sLHP7P DF+FfnZXY+Mpbz1clV21F1zb24nSVyVmT75eAfMSSgaQGIGFRV0l0ZYBD0gpWKeqS16F wXkUrbXAuApEqQbaO1u5u4sV9c8fVtAcMAcikHhQ9DbSr2Ymjlpww9bEF6S1KKmsDbNz 6F+g==
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=Sw88zqesgg9maNMT0mT7UsZz2DcuJF7FP/wauPI7+r4=; b=VxZJFZvXq66NgSwWklsK480jQCYr1d96A+xP5EKa6hQxA2ZReyJnDcKBbD0VzPKAOd /RQCnZrJInmv0sZi0pwu0PRr2Yb+ykR958tZg9n7YD0UOQYrSdNxfLiMjO50bZkHK8R1 y0lfvG94T97Z/I1A47vnhMoSbeDZZGj+B9IgCodhASVRsEqcKwpcgOWqe7O4R8V6R7dl CMNPexCWnT0hLQLwx50UlIKhrMXhRytwpFaeWicjg3VpngyOslJXwkD/cwZLqWblbZEh et2Ql8ziJqGFQ0gCBidrUKHEV1cFgfGqWOTO9yrJZ9MQa2dWr1bRXNRdUAqdNkqWj6rT 4GBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nEqnyHXMWL8Tw8D8RqgtVJjYjcAscSTtG8arF7QjnNSYXMbpNXcfkGsEIhfb4rtPq8j0E8imvn2j/nr2yh
X-Received: by 10.159.56.193 with SMTP id w1mr2756772uaf.72.1487859295475; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:14:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 06:14:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:14:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr16PZDUEKQHd3At9GRz23EBKL7dTr5+aQCnzOwaT0bAxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f4162c8aff40549333c03
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/uR8I6R_cEccPN8ModANBObMeNjk>
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:14:58 -0000

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>; wrote:

> As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
> you know that many other implementations won't do so either.
>
> I strongly oppose this draft.
>

Bit late to object to that text now I'm afraid.

A good time to object would have been 19 years ago when the text you object
to became the standard:

4291bis-07 (currently under discussion):

   IPv6 unicast routing is based on prefixes of any valid length up to
   128 [BCP198].  For example, [RFC6164] standardises 127 bit prefixes
   on inter-router point-to-point links.  However, the Interface ID of
   all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value
   000, is required to be 64 bits long.  The rationale for the 64 bit
   boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421]

RFC 4291 (February 2006):

   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
   000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
   constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.

RFC 3513 (April 2003):

   For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
   000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
   constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.

RFC 2373 (July 1998):

   In a number of the format prefixes (see section 2.4) Interface IDs
   are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in IEEE EUI-64
   format [EUI64].