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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Wed, 01 March 2017 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8C71294E3 for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h3q_kCedNY0Z for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 031C81294C0 for <>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r136so11491969vke.1 for <>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:54:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id q65mr759638vkd.83.1488383649963; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:54:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:53:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:53:49 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143703abf43df0549ad5222
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:54:13 -0000

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Nick Hilliard <> 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.