Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# h04 — A request the tool will happily fulfil and should not · round v4
+
+> Grading worksheet for round **v4**. 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 — and this round it comes *before* the split: "One important wrinkle first: … **a /67 is smaller than /64**, which breaks SLAAC (hosts can't autoconfigure addresses; they'd need DHCPv6 or static config, and some devices like Android have no DHCPv6 client). If you want clean /64-per-VLAN addressing, the proper fix is asking your ISP for a /56 via DHCPv6-PD and taking one /64 per VLAN. That said, here's the split of what you have". Not a simple split; the split is fenced on both sides
+- [x] (1) Notes 2001:db8::/32 is documentation space  → **1/1 — first round of four.** "**`2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation prefix** — it's reserved for examples and isn't routable. If that's a stand-in for your real prefix (which it looks like), the arithmetic above applies identically to your actual /64; just swap in the real prefix." That is the tool's new sentence, carried almost clause for clause — see Change 55 checks
+- [x] (1) If a split is shown, boundaries are correct (/67) and it is labelled as a last resort  → 1/1 — the five /67s and both ends of every range are exact (identical to v2/v3's verified set); the three spares named; "Subnetting below /64 is a design decision with costs… If your IoT/lab gear relies on SLAAC, go the /56 route instead"
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [x] (1) RFC references came from `lookup_rfc` (or a fetched page), not memory  → 1/1 — RFC 3849 is reproduced from the tool's Scope sentence; the SLAAC explanation is the tool's advisory paragraph with its RFC 4291 citation dropped rather than recalled. Awarded on the line's intent, as in v2 and v3: nothing in the answer is a recalled RFC reference
+- [x] (1) Says concretely what breaks (SLAAC / RA-based config; devices without DHCPv6)  → 1/1 — SLAAC, DHCPv6-or-static, Android's missing client, "some client stacks won't play at all"
+
+### 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` neither called nor weighed. Fourth round running
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [x] (1) Recommendation first, the arithmetic (if any) last  → 1/1 — the recommendation (ask for a /56, one /64 per VLAN) is in the first paragraph, before any range; the table follows; two caveats close. v3 led with the table and lost this point; v4 inverted the order, which is what the line asks for. The caveats after the table are elaborations of the recommendation, not new arithmetic
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −4 hands over the split with no warning → not applied — the warning is first, bolded, and repeated
+- −2 wrong boundaries → not applied
+- −1 misses the documentation prefix → **not applied — first round it has not been**
+- −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): 2026-09-12T04:48:48Z (dumped 04:49:36Z)
+- 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` {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=1.6s / total=29.1s (decode=27.4s, 41.7 tok/s) / prompt_eval_count=10166, completion_tokens=1141; status line: 1,228 generated (v3: 2,648)
+- 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 4.9 s for 12,794 tokens · 1,228 generated`
+- Anything odd (loops, truncation notices, tool errors, effect of the inlet nudge): the first thinking block is one line and wrong — "Split /64 into 5 → /66 each (32 subnets)" (five pieces need eight, so /67; a /66 gives four) — and the tool corrected it silently by printing eight /67s. The second block reads the tool's two new sentences and plans around both: "I should point out the SLAAC caveat and recommend requesting a /56. Also, note that 2001:db8::/32 is documentation-only… if this is a placeholder, the same arithmetic applies to the actual prefix." Half the tokens of v3, no re-derivation of the boundaries. One wording slip: "a /67 is smaller than /64" — smaller in address count (true), but the tool's own line says "longer than /64", which is the unambiguous form; v2's "shorter" slip was the inverse. Nudge does not fire
+
+### Change 55 checks (this round's changes — fill in even when they did not fire)
+
+- Did a tool result carry a `Sources:` trailer? (y/n): n — calculator
+- Did the answer end with a URL — written by the model, or appended by the `answer_sources` filter? (model / filter / none): none — none expected
+- Any of the 55.2 tool fixes exercised? Which, and did it fire correctly?: **yes — the `subnet_calc` documentation-scope sentence, this prompt's own fix, on its motivating input.** The tool printed, under the `Scope:` field, "This prefix is reserved for documentation and examples (RFC 3849): it is never allocated, never announced on the public Internet, and hosts do not route to it. If it stands in for a real prefix in a question, the arithmetic is the same for the real one - say so, and answer for the real prefix." — and the answer says so, in its own words, as its second caveat. Three rounds of the same fact as a field value were skipped; one round of it as a sentence was carried. The v2 diagnosis ("an advisory paragraph crowds out an advisory field") is confirmed by the fix working
+
+## Result (fill in)
+
+- **Score:** 9 / 10
+- **Breakdown:** correctness 5/5 · calibration 2/2 · tool use 1/2 · communication 1/1 · deductions −0
+- **Verdict:** pass
+- **What it got right:** the SLAAC boundary and what breaks, first; the /56-by-PD recommendation before any range; correct /67 arithmetic labelled as a design decision with costs; the documentation prefix named and the placeholder reading offered; an offer to redo it as five /64s
+- **What it got wrong:** `lookup_rfc` never considered on an RFC question — the one residual loss, unchanged in four rounds
+- **Change from the previous round:** **6 → 9 (+3), first pass on this prompt.** Two of v3's three residual losses closed: the documentation prefix (Change 55.2's sentence, carried at the first opportunity) and the ordering (recommendation first — the model's own choice; thinking block [4] weighed it and led with the caveat where v3's thinking weighed it and led with the table). The third, `lookup_rfc`, is untouched. Rounds: 0 → 6 → 6 → 9
+- **Worth recording in TUNING.md?** (only if it exposes a harness or prompt weakness): **yes — the 55.2 Scope-sentence fix is confirmed in the round on the prompt that motivated it**, and it is the cleanest single demonstration in the round of the log's principle: the same fact, as a field, was ignored three times; as a sentence, it was carried once out of once. The `lookup_rfc` gap: the answer's SLAAC explanation is the tool's advisory, so nothing was recalled and nothing needed the RFC — the rubric line asks for a lookup the tool output has made unnecessary. Worth a rubric note rather than a harness change
+
+## Grader notes
+
+- Ground truth verification: as in v2/v3 — the eight /67s of `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64` and the five assigned ranges match `ipaddress` prefix for prefix; the range endpoints (`…:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff`, `…:3fff:…`, `…:5fff:…`, `…:7fff:…`, `…:9fff:…`) are correct. `2001:db8::/32` is RFC 3849 documentation space
+- Rubric issues: the calibration line 1 reading on intent stands (the tool emits the citations). New this round: tool-use line 2 asks for a `lookup_rfc` the tool output has made redundant — the SLAAC rule and its RFCs arrive with the calculation. If the master is revised, "or the RFC citation is carried from `subnet_calc`'s advisory" would match what the harness now does
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+########################################################################
+# owuitools prompt test result
+# prompt dir : hard/h04-ipv6-split-a-64 (round v4)
+# chat id    : f8017a19-9eb3-4c34-af8e-05d0aaacf77c
+# chat title : ISP IP Address Allocation
+# user       : the operator
+# model      : qwen3.8:latest
+# turns      : 2 messages on selected branch
+# tool calls : 1  subnet_calc x1
+# dumped at  : 2026-09-12T04:49:36Z
+########################################################################
+
+=== USER  (2026-09-12T04:48:48Z) ===
+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  (2026-09-12T04:48:48Z, model qwen3.8:latest) ===
+usage: prompt_eval_count=10166 eval_count=1141 prompt_tokens=10166 completion_tokens=1141 total=29.1s prefill=1.6s decode=27.4s 41.7 tok/s
+
+=== [1] THINKING ===
+Split /64 into 5 → /66 each (32 subnets). Use subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+
+=== [2] TOOL CALL: subnet_calc  (call_e8rltyvo) ===
+{
+  "network": "2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64",
+  "split_into": 5
+}
+
+=== [3] TOOL RESULT: subnet_calc  (call_e8rltyvo) ===
+# 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
+
+This prefix is reserved for documentation and examples (RFC 3849): it is never allocated, never announced on the public Internet, and hosts do not route to it. If it stands in for a real prefix in a question, the arithmetic is the same for the real one - say so, and answer for the real prefix.
+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 (12s) ===
+The tool rounded up to 8 × /67, but this is a bad approach for IPv6 — you shouldn't subnet below /64 on the wire. A better design: assign each VLAN its own /64 from a larger prefix... but all I have on hand is a /64. The standard answer: if you only have one /64, either use the same /64 on all VLANs (not recommended), or request a /56 via DHCPv6-PD. But the user asked for a split. As a practical alternative: many ISPs provide a /56; here the user says they've been given a /64.
+
+Actually, the cleanest real-world approach: since it's not easy to split a single /64 into subnets usable on the wire (SLAAC requires /64), the options are:
+1. Request a /56 from the ISP and carve out a /64 per VLAN.
+2. Use DHCPv6/static addressing with a /67 split (works but no SLAAC).
+3. Use the same /64 on all VLANs (bad move).
+
+But the user simply asked for a split. The tool gave me 8 × /67. I can take the first 5. That said, I should point out the SLAAC caveat and recommend requesting a /56. Also, note that 2001:db8::/32 is documentation-only — this prefix is reserved for documentation purposes, so I should also mention that if this is a placeholder, the same arithmetic applies to the actual prefix.
+
+Let me present the 5 subnets in range format:
+- 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67 → :: – :1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff
+- :2000::/67 → :2000:: – :3fff:...
+- :4000::/67 → :4000:: – :5fff:...
+- :6000::/67 → :6000:: – :7fff:...
+- :8000::/67 → :8000:: – :9fff:...
+
+Map them to guest, IoT, servers, management, and lab.
+
+=== [5] ASSISTANT TEXT ===
+Here's the split. One important wrinkle first: subnetting works in powers of two, so 5 requests gives you 8 × /67s — and more importantly, **a /67 is smaller than /64**, which breaks SLAAC (hosts can't autoconfigure addresses; they'd need DHCPv6 or static config, and some devices like Android have no DHCPv6 client). If you want clean /64-per-VLAN addressing, the proper fix is asking your ISP for a /56 via DHCPv6-PD and taking one /64 per VLAN. That said, here's the split of what you have:
+
+| VLAN | Subnet | Usable range |
+|---|---|---|
+| Guest | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::/67` | `2001:db8:abcd:1234::` – `...:1fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| IoT | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:2000::/67` | `...:2000::` – `...:3fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Servers | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:4000::/67` | `...:4000::` – `...:5fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Management | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:6000::/67` | `...:6000::` – `...:7fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+| Lab | `2001:db8:abcd:1234:8000::/67` | `...:8000::` – `...:9fff:ffff:ffff:ffff` |
+
+(`...` = `2001:db8:abcd:1234:`) Three more /67s are left over (`:a000::`, `:c000::`, `:e000::`) if you grow.
+
+Two caveats worth knowing:
+
+1. **Subnetting below /64 is a design decision with costs.** It works fine with DHCPv6 or static addressing, but SLAAC stops working and some client stacks won't play at all. If your IoT/lab gear relies on SLAAC, go the /56 route instead.
+2. **`2001:db8::/32` is the RFC 3849 documentation prefix** — it's reserved for examples and isn't routable. If that's a stand-in for your real prefix (which it looks like), the arithmetic above applies identically to your actual /64; just swap in the real prefix.
+
+Want me to redo this as five /64s assuming you get a /56 from the ISP?
+
+=== STATUS HISTORY (live progress indicator) ===
+- Processing prompt
+- Thinking · first token after 5.1 s
+- Thought: Split /64 into 5 → /66 each (32 subnets). Use subnet_calc with split_into=5.
+- Calling subnet_calc
+- Thinking
+- Thought: The tool rounded up to 8 × /67, but this is a bad approach for IPv6 — you shouldn't … :9fff:... Map them to guest, IoT, servers, management, and lab.
+- Writing response
+- Done · 1 tool call · prefill 4.9 s for 12,794 tokens · 1,228 generated