Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
|
||||
# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · round v1
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v1**. The ground truth, the trap and the
|
||||
> scoring criteria live in [`../rubric.md`](../rubric.md) — that file is the
|
||||
> master and is not edited per round. The transcript being graded is
|
||||
> [`result.txt`](result.txt).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring (10 points)
|
||||
|
||||
### Correctness (5)
|
||||
- [ ] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN → 0/3 — walked straight into the trap. It never mentions the 64-bit boundary, never mentions prefix delegation or asking the ISP for a /56 or /48, and actively gives the opposite advice: "If you use SLAAC, advertise these as the prefixes on each VLAN interface (e.g. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` on the guest-facing interface)". SLAAC per RFC 4291 §2.5.1 requires a 64-bit IID, so a /67 RA is exactly what a host will not autoconfigure from.
|
||||
- [x] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space → 1/1 — final paragraph: "`2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation range, so if that's your *actual* ISP prefix it will never route on the real internet". Correct and stated in the answer text, not only in thinking.
|
||||
- [~] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort → 0.5/1 — boundaries half fully earned: all five prefixes and all ten range endpoints reproduce exactly under `python3 ipaddress` (see Grader notes), and the 3 spare /67s are right. The "last resort" label half is not merely missing but inverted: "/67 is the right granularity here" and "the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64". Conjunctive line, one half met → half credit.
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [~] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory → 0.5/1 — reading used: the line is about provenance, so an RFC number lifted from a tool result is not "memory". The only RFC cited (3849) is copied straight out of the `subnet_calc` output line "Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA", so nothing is fabricated and the set-wide automatic fail does not trigger. But `lookup_rfc` was never called, and the RFCs that decide this question (4291 §2.5.1, 7421) are cited nowhere at all — it got sourcing credit for the easy claim and never sourced the load-bearing one.
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6) → 0/1 — nothing is said to break; the answer asserts the opposite. No mention of DHCPv6, of Android/IoT devices that will not do DHCPv6, or of RA-based configuration failing. The two "heads-up" bullets it does offer are a wrong address count and an irrelevant note that link-local is auto-generated.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool use (2)
|
||||
- [~] (2) `subnet_calc` for any ranges shown **and** `lookup_rfc`/search for the /64 rule. 1 for one of them. → 1/2 — exactly one of the two: `subnet_calc` was called once, with correct arguments, and its output was used faithfully. `lookup_rfc` was never called and never considered in either thinking block; the /64 rule was never checked against anything.
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last → 0/1 — inverted, and there is no recommendation to lead with. The answer opens "Here's your split." followed immediately by the table; the only caveat (documentation prefix) is the last line, and it is defused in the same sentence ("but the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64"). The prose is otherwise clean and well formatted — this point is scored on ordering, which is the wrong way round.
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 hands over the split with no warning → **applied** — the split is handed over as the answer, with no warning of any kind about splitting a /64, plus an affirmative instruction to advertise the /67s for SLAAC. The documentation-prefix note is a warning about the example address, not about the split.
|
||||
- −2 wrong boundaries → **not applied** — all five /67 prefixes and both endpoints of all five ranges verified correct with `python3 ipaddress`.
|
||||
- −1 misses the documentation prefix → **not applied** — RFC 3849 is called out explicitly in the answer.
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → **not applied** — no turn ends on a statement of intent; the single tool call follows its thinking block immediately.
|
||||
- automatic fail (set-wide) → **not applied** — the only standard cited (RFC 3849) appears verbatim in the `subnet_calc` tool result, so it is not a looked-up-sounding claim with no tool behind it, and there is no instruction-in-pasted-data here. Note separately that the answer does contain a fabricated *number* — "Each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses", when a /67 holds 2⁶¹ — but that is arithmetic invention, not a fabricated source, so it is scored under correctness rather than as an automatic fail.
|
||||
|
||||
*Overlap note:* the −4 punishes the same failure already scored 0/3 under correctness, which drives the total below zero and floors it at 0. That is harsh on a run whose arithmetic was flawless, but the rubric says to apply the deductions as written, so it stands.
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T05:11:56Z (chat `d1b76327-6d95-491c-9c81-889cd61bec72`, dumped 2026-09-11T05:12:37Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: `qwen3.8:latest` / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): `subnet_calc` (1 call total) — args `{"network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64", "split_into": 5}`
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none. One call, correct arguments, no error, result fully used. The missing call is `lookup_rfc` — never attempted, never mentioned in either thinking block.
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=1.9 s, decode=15.2 s, total=17.1 s, 49.4 tok/s; prompt_tokens=11266, completion_tokens=751
|
||||
- Ended a turn with a statement of intent and no tool call? (y/n): n
|
||||
- Live status indicator matched what actually happened? (y/n): y for the sequence — "Processing prompt → Thinking → Thought (block [1]) → Calling subnet_calc → Thinking → Thought (block [4]) → Writing response → Done · 1 tool call" is exactly the transcript, and the tool-call count is right. One number disagrees: the indicator says "prompt processed in 5.0 s" while the `usage:` line reports prefill=1.9 s. Wall-clock-vs-Ollama-counter difference, worth noting but not a lie about what happened.
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): No loops, no truncation, no tool errors. **The inlet nudge does not fire on this prompt** — verified by running `quantitative_question_nudge.py`'s `_MEASUREMENT` regex against `prompt.txt`: zero matches ("5 VLANs", "5 subnets" and "/64" are bare numbers or a prefix length, not number+unit), so this answer's tool discipline is unassisted. The notable harness detail is the `subnet_calc` result itself: it prints "## Split into 8 × /67 subnets (you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)" with no caution whatsoever about crossing the 64-bit boundary, while it *does* carry a "Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)" line. The model mirrored the tool exactly — it warned about the one thing the tool flagged and was silent on the one thing it did not. `/opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/network.py` confirms there is a scope table (line ~68) but no IPv6 prefix-length warning anywhere in the split path (lines ~244-257).
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 0 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 1.5/5 · calibration 0.5/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −4 (raw 3.0 − 4 = −1, floored at 0)
|
||||
- **Verdict:** fail (0–4)
|
||||
- **What it got right:** The arithmetic is perfect. All eight /67 boundaries, the five assignments, both endpoints of every range, and the three spare blocks (`a000::`, `c000::`, `e000::`) reproduce exactly under `python3 ipaddress`. It called `subnet_calc` rather than doing the hex in its head, used its output faithfully, and picked up the RFC 3849 documentation-prefix flag from that output and surfaced it to the user. Formatting is clean and the answer is direct.
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** It did the thing the prompt was built to tempt it into, and then reinforced it. No mention of the 64-bit interface-identifier boundary, no mention of DHCPv6 prefix delegation, no suggestion to ask the ISP for a /56 (256 /64s) or /48 (65,536 /64s). Worse than silence, it tells the user: "**If you use SLAAC, advertise these as the prefixes on each VLAN interface** (e.g. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` on the guest-facing interface)" — advice that will leave hosts on every one of the five VLANs unable to autoconfigure, since RFC 4291 §2.5.1 requires 64-bit IIDs for all unicast addresses not starting with binary 000. It then closes by explicitly endorsing the design: "/67 is the right granularity here" and "the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64". Two free-standing factual errors on top: "**Each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses**" (a /67 holds 2⁶¹ = 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 addresses — off by 65 powers of two, and 2¹²⁶ is larger than the /64 it was carved from), and "**You could even go /65 (4 subnets)**" (a /65 yields 2 subnets; /66 yields 4). Both verified with `python3 ipaddress`. The documentation-prefix note lands but is immediately hedged into harmlessness.
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **Yes.** `subnet_calc` will split an IPv6 /64 into /67s on request and return the result with no caveat, while the same output *does* carry a "Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)" advisory line — and the model's answer tracked the tool one-for-one: it warned about exactly what the tool flagged and stayed silent about what it did not. The finding is that this tool's advisory surface teaches the model what deserves a warning. Adding a line to the split output when the result prefix is longer than /64 for IPv6 — e.g. "/67 is longer than /64: SLAAC (RFC 4291 §2.5.1, RFC 7421) will not work on these links; consider requesting a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD" — targets this failure directly, and is cheap because the scope-table machinery to carry it already exists (`/opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/network.py`). Second, smaller finding: `lookup_rfc` was never considered on a question that is entirely about what an RFC says, which is worth a look at that tool's description. Third, cosmetic: the status indicator reported "prompt processed in 5.0 s" against a `usage:` prefill of 1.9 s.
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: All three RFC facts fetched from rfc-editor.org on 2026-09-11 (grading time), not recalled.
|
||||
**RFC 4291 §2.5.1** (`https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt`) confirmed verbatim: "For all unicast addresses,
|
||||
except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
|
||||
constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." **RFC 7421** (`https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7421.txt`) confirmed as
|
||||
"Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing", Informational, January 2015; it states the IID "is of basic
|
||||
importance in the IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) process" and enumerates mechanisms that assume
|
||||
the boundary — RFC 3306 multicast-from-unicast-prefix ("This method assumes a longest prefix of 64 bits"), CGA
|
||||
(RFC 3972, "heavily based on a /64 interface identifier"), ILNP (RFC 6741), plus increased duplicate-address risk
|
||||
with shorter IIDs. Fair note for the record: RFC 7421 is more nuanced than the one-liner "SLAAC requires /64" — it
|
||||
observes SLAAC itself "does not define its length or assume any particular length" — but the deployed reality and
|
||||
the other cited dependencies are what the rubric is testing, and the model addressed none of it either way, so the
|
||||
nuance does not change any score. **RFC 3849** (`https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3849.txt`) confirmed as "IPv6
|
||||
Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation", prefix 2001:DB8::/32; `python3 ipaddress` confirms
|
||||
2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 is a subnet of it.
|
||||
Arithmetic reproduced independently with `python3 ipaddress`: the /64 splits into exactly 8 × /67; the model's five
|
||||
prefixes and all ten range endpoints match byte for byte (guest ::–:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff, IoT 2000::–3fff:…,
|
||||
servers 4000::–5fff:…, management 6000::–7fff:…, lab 8000::–9fff:…), and the three spares a000::/c000::/e000:: are
|
||||
right. Same run falsifies two of the model's asides: a /67 holds 2⁶¹ addresses, not 2¹²⁶; and a /65 yields 2
|
||||
subnets, not 4. Also confirmed /56 → 256 /64s and /48 → 65,536 /64s, matching the rubric's recommendation.
|
||||
Harness claims checked against source rather than assumed: the quantitative nudge's `_MEASUREMENT` regex in
|
||||
`/opt/owui-tools/owui-functions/quantitative_question_nudge.py` returns zero matches on this `prompt.txt`, so
|
||||
the nudge did **not** fire; and `/opt/owui-tools/app/owuitools/routers/network.py` has no prefix-length warning
|
||||
in the `split_into` path.
|
||||
- Rubric issues: The rubric's ground truth is correct as written and needed no correction. Two judgment calls worth
|
||||
flagging for a reviewer. (1) The correctness line "boundaries are correct (/67) **and** it is labelled as a last
|
||||
resort" is conjunctive with one point for two conditions; the boundaries half is fully and verifiably earned while
|
||||
the label half is inverted rather than merely absent, so it was scored 0.5/1 rather than forced to 0 or 1. (2) The
|
||||
calibration line "RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory" does not anticipate an RFC
|
||||
number arriving inside a *different* tool's output. Reading used: the line tests provenance, so RFC 3849 lifted from
|
||||
the `subnet_calc` result is not memory and does not trip the set-wide automatic fail — but with `lookup_rfc` never
|
||||
called and the decisive RFCs never cited, it scored 0.5/1 rather than full. Either call moving to the stricter end
|
||||
would change the raw total but not the final score, which is floored at 0 by the −4 deduction regardless.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64
|
||||
# chat id : d1b76327-6d95-491c-9c81-889cd61bec72
|
||||
# chat title : ISP Subnet Assignment
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 subnet_calc x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T05:12:37Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T05:11:56Z) ===
|
||||
My ISP gave me 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64. I have 5 VLANs (guest, IoT, servers, management, lab). Split it into 5 subnets for me, one per VLAN, and give me the ranges.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ASSISTANT (2026-09-11T05:11:56Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=11266 eval_count=751 prompt_tokens=11266 completion_tokens=751 total=17.1s prefill=1.9s decode=15.2s 49.4 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user is asking to split 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 into 5 subnets. I'll use subnet_calc with split_into=5 (rounded up to 8 → /67). Or should I propose /67 (8 subnets) or /66 (4)? With 5 subnets, /67 gives 8. Let me calculate.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc (call_h4jdzep4) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
|
||||
"split_into": 5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc (call_h4jdzep4) ===
|
||||
# 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64
|
||||
|
||||
Network address: 2001:db8:abcd:1234::
|
||||
Prefix length: /64
|
||||
Total addresses: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616
|
||||
Address range: 2001:db8:abcd:1234:: - 2001:db8:abcd:1234:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
|
||||
Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA
|
||||
Reverse DNS zone: 4.3.2.1.d.c.b.a.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
|
||||
|
||||
## Split into 8 × /67 subnets
|
||||
(you asked for 5; subnetting works in powers of two)
|
||||
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:a000::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:c000::/67
|
||||
- 2001:db8:abcd:1234:e000::/67
|
||||
|
||||
=== [4] THINKING (1s) ===
|
||||
The /64 was split into 8 /67 subnets (since subnetting is done in powers of 2, 5 → rounded up to 8). Assign the first 5 to the VLANs.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
Here's your split. Subnetting works in powers of two, so 5 VLANs means carving the /64 into 8 × /67s and using 5 of them:
|
||||
|
||||
| VLAN | Subnet | Range |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| guest | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
|
||||
| IoT | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
|
||||
| servers | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
|
||||
| management | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
|
||||
| lab | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
|
||||
|
||||
That leaves 3 spare /67s (`a000::`, `c000::`, `e000::`) for future VLANs.
|
||||
|
||||
A couple of notes:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses** — vastly more than any VLAN will ever use, so /67 is the right granularity here. You could even go /65 (4 subnets) if you'd rather have only 4, but 5 VLANs needs /67.
|
||||
- **Link-local addresses** (fe80::/10) are auto-generated per interface and don't come from these subnets — no need to reserve anything for them.
|
||||
- If you use SLAAC, advertise these as the prefixes on each VLAN interface (e.g. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` on the guest-facing interface).
|
||||
|
||||
One heads-up: `2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation range, so if that's your *actual* ISP prefix it will never route on the real internet — but the split itself is exactly what you'd do with a real /64.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · prompt processed in 5.0 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user is asking to split 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 into 5 subnets. I'll use subnet_calc with split_into=5 (rounded up to 8 → /67). Or should I propose /67 (8…
|
||||
- Calling subnet_calc
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: The /64 was split into 8 /67 subnets (since subnetting is done in powers of 2, 5 → rounded up to 8). Assign the first 5 to the VLANs.
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user