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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 15:54 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 DD8C71294E3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 h3q_kCedNY0Z for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 031C81294C0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r136so11491969vke.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:54:10 -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=p2bwCme1YgqIWRFaYPC8gpOND6eTMTkLfQAmqKr8zR8=; b=f7oZnPCJ4S0VfFAckKSD55xbk31Li0gPF6oJQ8YOAE+ODPkR0tcuZHrcI0eilxYCVU FHVypEr5iy787aSU/OFrkeK7gvv7dR+V6l8WVbt1dOnlVmeMZx0e9lvHARqys2EAvdvB rUo4HzRU8yWAf/YxSWsIZA0ZgzofO2SelQUm1481ICA9l1qqagyc0U7PxzQbbznXJt1s bW7CP3MwNLv5sfGTfr9vXPfR3j68agS3m1/QgutkE04nZrjbqzEmeCIdCaeWE9kuZbmk FOi4KOiR06mfKis8YNjdye/jqkyadiZc/k5tseMapQXDekqYrBb9qbVFfH5shcGDTPRk 2hdw==
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=p2bwCme1YgqIWRFaYPC8gpOND6eTMTkLfQAmqKr8zR8=; b=XOgQZxaeRwvylx0LdHLwzHiLQb1Sq0dyJiUkgBl/UIvDFfg6zfUtSMjpKzE4Dq7fr2 i8VRfgjJu9qgOT3Fz+wEsZL8g8L+h3gpPHatifNVgBthxqGYlavvPk4FhTF/Ihvq7R4I Y6gawBEUqrVPYh1PzrnkSsq18ewSAG4jZIACAN4etcGaQuOWKN9iSQ0fYk2BhxEAK8ne wD18abY+PVgWP0DKQy3Z77FXGtzuTT2Wdq3W9+UM0Es4I3KNMn69V7/uew0UXpaRTNxQ y92p7WQTLnrcyjSNeYFaQeJwqJqkqYu8DbQxMrTleewq+hf2XJ9bfw46SUgooXGwYkdn GHKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nnBgfKeVvDUbES+/PxXPQjN6Co3Y4kD3ENsFibv2HdFuDvDShXgg+6wvBD6pedzJwEZRKXqze4XgwXDZcW
X-Received: by 10.31.142.68 with SMTP id q65mr759638vkd.83.1488383649963; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:54:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.171.2 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:53:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <58B6A02E.50501@foobar.org>
References: <CAKD1Yr0wK8EiAbz39EZz-xZLtsSV2JROSzNECKtGo36Zc=RZ0Q@mail.gmail.com> <3fba77e0-d7ff-802e-019b-6fe152eaee67@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3c_utoa7vgXAGipe4-hbRQ3+2JY=ZZVhetX2zSCJ_FQA@mail.gmail.com> <20170301.110443.71171106.sthaug@nethelp.no> <CAKD1Yr0qwwfH2a2ND7Va7tHigVTQ=iWkEwicxhTYpjuYMJnARg@mail.gmail.com> <58B6A02E.50501@foobar.org>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:53:49 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3j88RP=Hc3Xa-cMwOUZ1Td1uej0AHsNEKoAchoCe-ghQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143703abf43df0549ad5222
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yj3A0PvheKDtVXUPZY1Zky17cNg>
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:54:13 -0000

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:

> > What else? You don't have to list them here, a pointer to a previous
> > message will do.
>
> * established practice since the 1990s, suggesting that any attempt to
> un-ring this particular bell is likely not to succeed.
>

Can you explain the difference between your reply and "we've been doing it
for 20 years therefore it must be the right thing to do"?

The latter is a a) not a technical argument, and b) not a useful argument
if most of that operational knowledge was formed using IPv4. Given that for
most of the 1990s IPv6 had not been designed, much less operationally
deployed, I assume that you do indeed mean IPv4.

The reason why IPv4 addressing practiced don't necessarily apply in IPv6 is
the protocols are completely different in terms of address availability.
Example: in IPv4, CIDR is an absolute necessity in order not to run out of
space. In IPv6, it's not.