Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

On 24 February 2017 at 12:41, Christopher Morrow 
<morrowc(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:

> gosh people are being literal today :)
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Lorenzo Colitti 
> <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> > morrowc(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> >
> > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > > > ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, 
> > > > comments
> > > may be
> > > > sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain 
> > > > the
> > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting."
> > > Nothing in the past really matters here, what matters is: "Is the bis
> > > draft all set, did we fix all the things which must be fixed before this
> > > draft becomes a real 'standard'?"
> > I don't think you can say nothing in the past matters here. We know that
> > there have been host implementations that relied on this guarantee, and we
> > have to consider that if we change the standard, those implementations will
> > become non-compliant.
> I don't think the proposed (now 160+ messages back) text really says:
> "FREE FOR ALL< NO LIMITS!!! WEEE!" it says: "Hey, if you want to use /64
> because the application you are being placed into requires it (slac, blah
> and blah and ilnp and blah - see rfc7k) then do that, else any other prefix
> length works"
>
> how's that not 'ok' for host folks? "Hi, my host is going to be in a slaac
> world.. so /64 it is!"
For manual assignment among consenting adults: as you like it.  (For all
prefixes longer than /64, the trailing 64bits would still end up being
unique; there is no real issue here.)

And I gather everyone agrees that at a minimum the /127 RFC and other
working-group-graduated documents should be suitably incorporated and
referenced.

Otherwise, this feels like another round of "why isn't IPv6 just 128bit
IPv4?"  IMHO having /64 as the logical unit of allocation to network leaves
is a very good thing.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature