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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 EE8CA12963B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:01:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JWlEgod2DMi3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8765D129417 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 01:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 379752060A; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:01:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.42]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E1D441A0062; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:01:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::c845:f762:8997:ec86%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:01:33 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>, Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Topic: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjncftM4MsdvAvU2EBRQMUtfNFKF323eg
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:01:32 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E183E6@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20170223134026.GI5069@gir.theapt.org> <9277BC0B-04F3-4FC1-901E-F83A8F0E02D7@google.com> <CAL9jLaZ2h2mLYvANesMNj25ipq8QrTcmXsVLxGQMkME4WtpEow@mail.gmail.com> <20170224082223.GN5069@gir.theapt.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170224082223.GN5069@gir.theapt.org>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/vbvBm-dZ3JnKO4xlBc2ZT8XT9bU>
Cc: james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>, 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 09:01:39 -0000

Hi Peter, 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Peter Hessler
> Envoyé : vendredi 24 février 2017 09:22
> À : Christopher Morrow
> Cc : james woodyatt; 6man WG
> Objet : Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
> 
> On 2017 Feb 23 (Thu) at 22:19:24 -0500 (-0500), Christopher Morrow wrote:
> :picking out one messge, not particularly picking ON one message...
> :
> :On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:57 PM, james woodyatt <jhw@google.com>; wrote:
> :
> :> On Feb 23, 2017, at 05:40, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>; wrote:
> :> >
> :> > Restricting all subnets to The One True Size(tm) of /64 is utterly
> :> > ridiculous.  Sure, that may be an artificial limitation of SLAAC and
> :> > various other technologies, but *those* can have limitations.
> :> >
> :> > Limiting it inside the entire specification is even stupider of an
> idea
> :> > than still supporting Classful networks.
> :> > […]
> :>
> :> It would help if those objecting to the promotion of RFC 4291 to
> Standard,
> :> unless the requirement for subnet prefixes to be generally /64 (except
> :> where noted by standards track documents), would please remember that
> SLAAC
> :> is only one of several technologies dependent on it. That’s why this
> draft
> :> now includes a reference to RFC 7421, which lists a non-exhaustive list
> of
> :> several things that are broken on subnets where prefixes longer than
> /64
> :> are used.
> :>
> :>
> :there seems to be a general sense, in reading the many threads now about
> :this -bis draft, that we can only have one way. In the proposed changed
> :text, ~150 messages back and 2 threads over, there was the callout for
> :applications which require 64bit subnet masks ALONG with "if you really
> :know what you are doing, feel free to use a different subnet mask".
> :
> :I feel like folk are stuck in the 1 or the other camp, and that isn't
> :helpful to this discussion.
> :
> :Why can't we have both?
> :
> 
> I would be perfectly happy if the _IPv6 Protocol_ itself did not have
> any limitations on subnet sizes

[Med] This is BCP198: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp198.

" The length of an
   IPv6 prefix may be any number from zero to 128" 

, but if SLAAC and other protocols had
> limitations.
> 
> Those limitations can be described in other documents, and won't block
> other usage.

[Med] This is already documented by Brian et al.: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421 

> 
> 
> :As  to age of text and other things, I look at this -bis and the review
> :here as the final step to making 'ipv6' a real standard and not a
> 'proposed
> :standard' correct? So before we stamp things 'DONE' making sure all eyes
> :are dotted and tees are crossed surely seems sane and rational.
> :
> :-chris
> 
> --
> A day for firm decisions!!!!!  Or is it?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------