Re: [v6ops] Routers are hosts too!

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 08 January 2016 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBCA1A8A61 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 FBPjA-0rS8CU for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D1EC1A8A46 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id u08FOmJl028473 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:24:48 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E60B2012B2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:32:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEF82052BF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:32:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id u08FOl7C008816 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:24:47 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <568E6552.9030008@gmail.com> <568EACE4.2070408@isi.edu> <568F8F37.3050708@gmail.com> <20160108.121015.74737501.sthaug@nethelp.no> <67D93E4D-714A-4566-A308-D9EFBB71C43B@puck.nether.net> <568FC62B.2040109@gmail.com> <18838.74.139.119.34.1452263734.iglou@webmail.iglou.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <568FD4BF.5080608@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:24:47 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18838.74.139.119.34.1452263734.iglou@webmail.iglou.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2t9nsqt0TPchBVUgX6P_smyz1UQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Routers are hosts too!
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:24:57 -0000


Le 08/01/2016 15:35, Jeff McAdams a écrit :
>
>> As such, a memory-savvy and reduced clock computer Host may benefit from
>> not implementing longest-match and still connect to the Internet.
>
> ...
>
>> I wanted to say that a Host - as defined in RFC - does not implement
>> longest-match.
>
>> A host as people call a laptop, a smartphone or a tablet does implement
>> it though.
>
> So, basically, you're saying that, to at least a vanishingly small
> rounding error, there are no "RFC Hosts" on the Internet today.
 >
> So what's your point?

Maybe we should find that small rounding error - what OS does not 
implement longest-match and yet connects to the Internet?

Second, until we ifnd that small rounding error, we may stop talking 
about Hosts, and declare the Host RFC historic.  Or update it with a 
sentence saying that Hosts too must implement longest-match.

Alex

>