Re: disagreement on which OS should change

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 27/04/2019 à 10:33, Ole Troan a écrit :
> Quite. The most prudent action is to stop responding to messages in 
> these sets of threads. I will do so, and I encourage everyone else to do 
> the same.

Ole,

I do not understand this.

You invited me to rate limit my messages.  I did.

Now you invite everyone (probably myself too) to not respond to these 
sets of threads I initiated.

I would like to ask you: do you think I should stop this topic?  Do you 
ask this as a WG Chair?

If so, please be explicit.

Thank you,

Alex

> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> 
> On 27 Apr 2019, at 09:54, Brian Carpenter <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>> I don't understand this discussion. LL addresses exist in the absence 
>> of any routers and are created spontaneously by hosts with no external 
>> inputs. Therefore, there is no such thing as an identity for a link, 
>> there is only an interface identifier which is strictly local to the 
>> host. Even in a point to point case, there is no reason that the two 
>> hosts would agree about the link's identity.
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian
>>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2019, 17:13 Gyan Mishra, <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Alex
>>
>>     I agree and that completely makes sense what you are saying.
>>
>>     So with RFC 4291 all hosts for all subnets we’re actually sitting
>>     on the same fe80::/64 even though different physical or logical
>>     interfaces and each host was made unique by the EUI64 station id.
>>
>>     So with the new  draft if all hosts would sitting on the same
>>     global unicast subnet now also sit on the same unique Link local
>>     subnet.  So the RA for Default route sent to all hosts on the
>>     subnet would be this new LInk local set on the router
>>
>>     Subnet 1:
>>     Router A fe80:1::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:1::1  ::/0 sent to host
>>
>>     Router B fe80:1::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:1::1 ::/0 sent to host
>>
>>     Host A fe80:1::EUI64 bia
>>
>>     Host B fe80:1::EUI64 bia
>>
>>
>>     Subnet 2:
>>     Router  A fe80:2::EUI64 bia  vrrp vip fe80:2::1 ::/0 sent to host
>>
>>     Router B fe80:2::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:2::1 ::/0 sent to host
>>
>>     Host A fe80:2::EUI64 bia
>>
>>     Host B fe80:2::EUI64 bia
>>
>>     Gyan
>>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>     > On Apr 26, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>>     <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >> Le 25/04/2019 à 18:09, 神明達哉 a écrit :
>>     >> At Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:41:35 +0200,
>>     >> Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>     >> > >  > That an implementation allows you to do something does
>>     not mean that
>>     >> > > it is supported (in the product sense) nor that the RFC is
>>     wrong.
>>     >> > >
>>     >> > > Right, but I actually don't understand why we still have to
>>     have this
>>     >> > > kind of conversation.  Almost all real-world
>>     implementations have some
>>     >> > > glitch;
>>     >> >
>>     >> > The problem here would be to ask which of the OSs have the
>>     glitch: the
>>     >> > ones that support fe80:1:: or the ones that dont?
>>     >> Obviously the former.
>>     >
>>     > I think it is the latter: the OSs that dont support fe80:1::
>>     should change.
>>     >
>>     > Alex
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     > If time permits:
>>     >
>>     > I would like to make a note here.  I know that AD and Chairs
>>     read these messages.  I would like to invite consideration of
>>     these messages, if time permits, when pondering about which way
>>     the balance tips.
>>     >
>>     > My reading of these discussions is that:
>>     >
>>     > - one person, or small group of persons, indeed highly
>>     knowledgeable, consider fe80:1:: to be a violation of standards,
>>     an RFC to be right, one OS to be right, manual config of LLs to be
>>     wrong.
>>     >
>>     > - probably more persons, or at least several persons, consider
>>     fe80:1:: to not be a violation of standards, some other OSs to be
>>     right, manual config of LLs to be right, 'liberal in what you
>>     accept', 'open minded'.
>>     >
>>     > (some person is in both categories).
>>     >
>>     > This is my reading of the discussion.
>>     >
>>     > Alex
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >   The question itself is nonsense to me, equal to
>>     >> a question asking which OS has the glitch: an implementation
>>     allowing
>>     >> to send a packet with source=::1 outside of the node, or an
>>     >> implementation that prevents it.
>>     >> If you don't like to consider it to be a glitch, update
>>     RFC4291.  As
>>     >> you've already seen it would be quite hard, but it's not
>>     necessarily
>>     >> impossible.  Insisting a standard violation behavior is not a
>>     glitch
>>     >> because of the existence of the behavior is just a time wasting
>>     >> effort.
>>     >> --
>>     >> JINMEI, Tatuya
>>     >
>>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------