Initial Commit
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · round v2
|
||||
|
||||
> Grading worksheet for round **v2**. 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)
|
||||
- [x] (3) Declines to simply split: explains the /64 SLAAC boundary and recommends a /56 or /48 via PD, one /64 per VLAN → 3/3 — both substantive requirements are met in full. The boundary: "Hosts on these subnets **cannot autoconfigure addresses** (RFC 4291 §2.5.1) — they'll need static addressing or DHCPv6". The recommendation: "The standard fix isn't to split the /64 — it's to ask your ISP for more: most will hand out a **/56 via DHCPv6-PD**, which gives you 256 proper /64s, **one per VLAN**, with SLAAC fully working." It does not *simply* split — the split is bounded by a bolded caveat and an explicit recommendation against deploying it. The fact that the split comes first is charged on the communication line, not twice here
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space → **0/1** — not mentioned anywhere in the answer. The tool output's second-to-last line reads `Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849) - not routable, and not a ULA`, and it was not carried across. **v1 got this and v2 did not**
|
||||
- [x] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort → 1/1 — all five prefixes and both endpoints of every range reproduce exactly under `python3 ipaddress`, as do the three spare blocks (`a000::`, `c000::`, `e000::`). The last-resort framing is present in substance: "One important caveat **before you deploy this**" and "The standard fix isn't to split the /64"
|
||||
|
||||
### Calibration & honesty (2)
|
||||
- [x] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory → 1/1 — "RFC 4291 §2.5.1" is reproduced verbatim from `subnet_calc`'s own output, which now carries it (Change 50). Awarded on the line's intent, which is that the citation is not recalled; noted in Rubric issues that `subnet_calc` is literally neither `lookup_rfc` nor a fetched page
|
||||
- [x] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6) → 1/1 — concretely and usefully: hosts cannot autoconfigure, they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, "some devices (notably Android phones) don't ship a DHCPv6 client at all", and the consequence a user will actually see — "If your guest or IoT VLANs have phones/laptops expecting to just 'work,' **they'll get link-local only**"
|
||||
|
||||
### 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** — `subnet_calc` only. `lookup_rfc` was never called, and never weighed in thinking. This is v1's second finding unchanged: on a question that is entirely about what an RFC says, the RFC tool is not considered. The RFC reference in the answer is sourced, but it is sourced from the subnetting calculator
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication (1)
|
||||
- [ ] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last → **0/1** — exactly inverted. The answer opens "Here are 5 subnets from your /64", gives the full table, then the caveat, then the recommendation as the final paragraph. A reader who takes the table and stops has the design the prompt was built to prevent
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic deductions
|
||||
- −4 hands over the split with no warning → **not applied.** There is a substantial, bolded, correct warning and a concrete alternative. v1 took this deduction
|
||||
- −2 wrong boundaries → not applied — every prefix and endpoint verified exact
|
||||
- **−1 misses the documentation prefix → APPLIED**
|
||||
- −1 intent-without-call (set-wide) → not applied
|
||||
- automatic fail (set-wide) → not applied
|
||||
|
||||
## Harness observations (fill in after the run)
|
||||
|
||||
- Run date/time (UTC): 2026-09-11T20:15:30Z (dumped 20:16:28Z)
|
||||
- Model tag / Open WebUI version: qwen3.8:latest / Open WebUI 0.11.3
|
||||
- Tool calls, in order (copy from the `result.txt` header): 1 — `subnet_calc` x1 (`{network: "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64", split_into: 5}`)
|
||||
- Wasted, failed, or repeated calls: none
|
||||
- Prefill time / total time / tokens (from the `usage:` line in `result.txt`): prefill=2.6s / total=16.8s (decode=14.2s, 47.8 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10153, completion_tokens=677
|
||||
- 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 — `Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,710 tokens · 904 generated`. v1's cosmetic finding ("prompt processed in 5.0 s" vs `prefill=1.9s`) is resolved by Change 52
|
||||
- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): **this is the prompt v1's grade wrote a tool-output fix for, the fix shipped in Change 50, and it worked.** v1's finding was that `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 — 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 v2 output now carries both advisories:
|
||||
> `Note: a /67 is longer than /64. SLAAC needs a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 section 2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains why the boundary is fixed), so hosts on a /67 cannot autoconfigure an address - they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, and some stacks (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all. The arithmetic below is correct; whether to subnet past /64 is a design decision. Where the constraint is "I only have one /64", the usual answer is to ask the provider for a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD rather than to split the /64.`
|
||||
The model's answer reproduces that paragraph almost clause for clause — the SLAAC boundary, the RFC number, the DHCPv6-or-static consequence, the Android detail, and the /56-by-PD recommendation. **The v1 hypothesis is confirmed: this model's warnings are a function of the tool's advisory surface.** The uncomfortable corollary is visible in the same answer: the *other* advisory in the same output, `Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)`, is a **field** rather than a paragraph, and it did not survive the trip — v1, which had only that field, surfaced it; v2, which had a paragraph competing with it, dropped it. Worth noting that the model made exactly one tool call and wrote the whole answer from it. The quantitative nudge does not fire (no digit-plus-unit)
|
||||
|
||||
## Result (fill in)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Score:** 6 / 10
|
||||
- **Breakdown:** correctness 4/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 0/1 · deductions −1
|
||||
- **Verdict:** partial
|
||||
- **What it got right:** the thing that made v1 a zero. v1 handed over the split, told the user to advertise the /67s for SLAAC, and called the design "the right granularity here"; v2 gives the same arithmetic and then tells the user, in bold, that hosts on these subnets cannot autoconfigure, that Android has no DHCPv6 client, that phones will end up with link-local only, and that the real fix is a /56 by DHCPv6-PD giving one proper /64 per VLAN. Every prefix and range is exact. v1's two free-standing arithmetic errors — "each /67 still has 2¹²⁶ addresses" and "you could even go /65 (4 subnets)" — are both gone
|
||||
- **What it got wrong:** three things, in descending order. **The order.** The split comes first and the recommendation last, which is the inverse of what a design review should look like and of what the rubric asks; the prompt is built around the temptation to lead with the arithmetic, and the answer still leads with it. **The documentation prefix.** `2001:db8::/32` is RFC 3849 space, no ISP assigns it, the tool said so in the output the model was reading, and the answer never mentions it — so the answer treats a placeholder address as a real ISP delegation throughout. **`lookup_rfc` was never considered** on a question entirely about an RFC rule. One wording slip too: "a /67 is **shorter** than the /64 that SLAAC expects" — a /67 is *longer* (more prefix bits, smaller subnet), and the tool's own text said "longer", so the model inverted a word it was copying from
|
||||
- **Change from the previous round:** **0 → 6 (+6), and the cause is a single tool-output change.** This is the most direct confirmation in the round of the log's governing principle. v1's grade diagnosed the failure precisely — the model warns about what the tool flags and stays silent about what it does not — and proposed the exact remedy: a line in `subnet_calc`'s split output when an IPv6 result prefix is longer than /64, naming RFC 4291 §2.5.1 and RFC 7421 and pointing at a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD. Change 50 shipped that paragraph almost word for word, and the model's answer now reproduces it almost word for word. Nothing else about this prompt changed: same single tool call, same arithmetic, same model. The −4 deduction disappeared and the two correctness lines about the boundary and the recommendation both flipped to full marks. What did **not** improve is everything the tool output does not drive: the ordering, the documentation-prefix note (which regressed, because a one-line `Scope:` field now competes with a five-line advisory paragraph), and the absence of `lookup_rfc`
|
||||
- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — as the headline confirmation for Change 50's `subnet_calc` item, and with one sharp caveat.** Record the before/after plainly: 0/10 → 6/10, the −4 "hands over the split with no warning" deduction eliminated, and the model's warning text traceable clause-by-clause to the new advisory. Then record the caveat, because it is the more interesting finding: **adding an advisory paragraph appears to have crowded out an advisory field.** v1 had one advisory in that output (`Scope: documentation only (RFC 3849)`) and surfaced it; v2 has that field plus a five-line paragraph, and surfaced only the paragraph. The model is not reading the tool output as a document to be summarised in full — it is picking up what is most salient. If both warnings matter on this prompt, `Scope: documentation only` needs to be a sentence that says what it means for the user ("this is RFC 3849 documentation space — no ISP assigns it, so treat this prefix as a placeholder"), not a field value. That is a cheap change and this prompt is the test case for it. Second, unchanged from v1: `lookup_rfc` is still not considered on an RFC question, which is worth one look at that tool's description now that Change 53 has rewritten it
|
||||
|
||||
## Grader notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Ground truth verification: recomputed with `python3 ipaddress` on 2026-09-11. `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64` splits into exactly eight /67s, and the model's five assignments and three spares match the enumeration prefix for prefix: `::`, `:2000::`, `:4000::`, `:6000::`, `:8000::`, spares `:a000::`, `:c000::`, `:e000::`. Both endpoints of every range in the answer's table are exact (e.g. Guest `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `2001:db8:abcd:1234:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff`). Each /67 holds 2⁶¹ = 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 addresses — the answer wisely does not state a count, avoiding v1's "2¹²⁶" error. `2001:db8::/32` confirmed as a supernet of the user's prefix, so the documentation-prefix point applies. The SLAAC constraint is as the rubric states: RFC 4291 §2.5.1 requires 64-bit interface identifiers for unicast addresses not beginning with binary 000, and RFC 7421 documents why the boundary is fixed. The rubric's ground truth is correct as written
|
||||
- Rubric issues: two, both worth flagging for v3 without editing the master. **(1) The documentation prefix is charged twice** — correctness line 2 ("Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space", 1 point) and the deduction "−1 misses the documentation prefix" both fire on the same single omission, costing 2 of 10 for a point the rubric's own ground truth calls secondary ("Fine to treat as a placeholder, but say so"). Both were applied here for consistency with e16, where the rubric likewise lists a scoring line and a deduction covering the same failure and both were applied. A v3 revision should keep one or the other. **(2)** Calibration line 1 says RFC references must come from "`lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page)". Since Change 50, `subnet_calc` itself emits RFC citations, so a model can now satisfy the line's *intent* (not recalled) while satisfying neither named source. Awarded on intent; the line should be widened to "from tool output" when the master is next revised
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
# owuitools prompt test result
|
||||
# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64 (round v2)
|
||||
# chat id : 63dcfbe9-5840-4d43-b034-81ea71b26743
|
||||
# chat title : ISP IP Address Assignment
|
||||
# user : the operator
|
||||
# model : qwen3.8:latest
|
||||
# turns : 2 messages on selected branch
|
||||
# tool calls : 1 subnet_calc x1
|
||||
# dumped at : 2026-09-11T20:16:28Z
|
||||
########################################################################
|
||||
|
||||
=== USER (2026-09-11T20:15:30Z) ===
|
||||
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 (2026-09-11T20:15:30Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
|
||||
usage: prompt_eval_count=10153 eval_count=677 prompt_tokens=10153 completion_tokens=677 total=16.8s prefill=2.6s decode=14.2s 47.8 tok/s
|
||||
|
||||
=== [1] THINKING ===
|
||||
The user wants to split a /64 into 5 subnets. However, there's an important technical point: on a routed IPv6 network, /64 is the minimum unit prefix for SLAAC/EUI-64, and splitting into smaller prefixes (e.g., /66) breaks SLAAC/DHCPv6 and most router implementations. The best practice is to request additional /64s from the ISP, or use NAT66. That said, the subnet_calc tool can split it — let me calculate what a /67 would look like (splitting into 5 → round up to 8 → /67).
|
||||
|
||||
I should run the calculation and present it, but I'll also mention the caveats about SLAAC. Let me call subnet_calc with split_into=5.
|
||||
|
||||
=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc (call_io4c1r9o) ===
|
||||
{
|
||||
"network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
|
||||
"split_into": 5
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc (call_io4c1r9o) ===
|
||||
# 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
|
||||
Note: a /67 is longer than /64. SLAAC needs a 64-bit interface identifier (RFC 4291 section 2.5.1; RFC 7421 explains why the boundary is fixed), so hosts on a /67 cannot autoconfigure an address - they need DHCPv6 or static addressing, and some stacks (notably Android) ship no DHCPv6 client at all. The arithmetic below is correct; whether to subnet past /64 is a design decision. Where the constraint is "I only have one /64", the usual answer is to ask the provider for a /56 or /48 by DHCPv6-PD rather than to split the /64.
|
||||
|
||||
(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 (0s) ===
|
||||
Present the five subnets with their ranges, and also include a note about SLAAC (SLAAC).
|
||||
|
||||
=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
|
||||
Here are 5 subnets from your /64 (subnetting works in powers of two, so I carved it into /67s — you'll have 3 spare):
|
||||
|
||||
| VLAN | Prefix | 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` |
|
||||
|
||||
Spare: `:a000::/67`, `:c000::/67`, `:e000::/67`.
|
||||
|
||||
**One important caveat before you deploy this:** a /67 is shorter than the /64 that SLAAC expects. Hosts on these subnets **cannot autoconfigure addresses** (RFC 4291 §2.5.1) — they'll need static addressing or DHCPv6, and some devices (notably Android phones) don't ship a DHCPv6 client at all. If your guest or IoT VLANs have phones/laptops expecting to just "work," they'll get link-local only.
|
||||
|
||||
The standard fix isn't to split the /64 — it's to ask your ISP for more: most will hand out a **/56 via DHCPv6-PD**, which gives you 256 proper /64s, one per VLAN, with SLAAC fully working. Worth asking before you commit to this design.
|
||||
|
||||
=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
|
||||
- Processing prompt
|
||||
- Thinking · first token after 5.9 s
|
||||
- Thought: The user wants to split a /64 into 5 subnets. However, there's an important technical … caveats about SLAAC. Let me call subnet_calc with split_into=5.
|
||||
- Calling subnet_calc
|
||||
- Thinking
|
||||
- Thought: Present the five subnets with their ranges, and also include a note about SLAAC (SLAAC).
|
||||
- Writing response
|
||||
- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 5.8 s for 12,710 tokens · 904 generated
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user