IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0152212ECA7 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 nMxUsEcTdNTl for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04BC912EC5C for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id f10so44632218uaa.2 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0vuW3WrAn4lOds67dkde/dJhexSkwSxJP4qVR8uDIn0=; b=ezNcjEKcFSMJrLV0QfN7BJuR+2BsLu23Y/xf3wtcwJuk6+rcBN0tCRMqO0qvqyITUq DUZJ2KBRux5J7ymCfUD6UpMK1oekNopZyuQ698xy7l+pZGU+JBUIFW6dx4TJEc2FlIVK Tc6nyvM43wyU6EtQvYaUsg6ZVQcK4ngSlP8QWmWdJJ9M03ADpO45kYqyFbsS7yQ5IQ6Q yShPfCUrBFaU0fD5YKaJCR0pJpXqjFCCXBBSLsDikLO9VMh3DxqShe8cYvfdO8YrQbkl YQPOqFYI3B9y+ClGspwdQo1lOeIR4ELtrdPT+WRQlGJlAXJBvdIAUL2iVKLaVfepqKub 6xNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0vuW3WrAn4lOds67dkde/dJhexSkwSxJP4qVR8uDIn0=; b=PSt9XdibK3btbyLyCJSDiWa3Uxt5DRnbe/7VlYyCTnIz4YATi3V8dfRVmLu6CmBmVM xTAD6ytw2zYly/wCaWbdpoqVlv0+3ig3DRtUbxFxGlXj0o9H/AIiQ8pK4njEfXWznHid tAI/bXEM8k3CLk9wJaNLhmV0T6PeRN4oN/TElbpVIu0Dh0II8Ji1UjdEc/s+SRfXGM8C ITJ7RQqq2Fk3Ony5MBoH3zfHWLw9BH4yBBVv0eQT9lTpBqV8NpssAhdOMS2oQiMyKMcD Lg2fWlG9U5pieGnQZXk7Gqf+x6l3ganvt9/jKjxNgXzWKXBra9nY0jeSj73Lbzvbw+/f 25Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/74ykK9emP9sosEAkLdpPiBD/U3IFUylBOXXERP/gUuR0wcEoNF 00dZuonFeA6lbz3G+dRtGRp8+pofxS27
X-Received: by 10.31.16.200 with SMTP id 69mr2170021vkq.45.1492682619828; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.110.200 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a405d7b4aab24c6f95de26e1b7a3876b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <0d33195c-d828-1d5b-6a49-ca23d9d4a793@sonic.net> <CY1PR03MB22654E9D09DC4384A74D9188A3350@CY1PR03MB2265.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CFC7EFC7-BD75-43DC-A61C-FF7ABD7337A3@ericsson.com> <e8161f19-4be2-1f7b-99e3-785a515accbd@innovationslab.net> <a37ba07e66b84179b65588d8c1f7380e@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2KxYk+3BjUg9CjWtzU0P97bJT=P39iMHfA_zV_4awKNQ@mail.gmail.com> <a405d7b4aab24c6f95de26e1b7a3876b@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:03:19 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0yLWieDV+J7UWLhyr=BVqO5BBqcB_89veDwz-uB5NKtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11431e9851bda8054d9641b6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/-rJF49p1jlB8f_Dw0XENu8GuRwQ>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:43 -0000

I think so. the unspecified address is certainly not topologically correct
because it's not in the right /64.

In general, random garbage has only one chance in 2^64 of being
topologically correct. :-)

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hello Lorenzo:
>
>
>
> Say the user registers, say, unspecified, is “Address topologically
> incorrect” the right thing?
>
> I can add that code, but how do you return that the requester asks for
> pure garbage?
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com]
> *Sent:* jeudi 20 avril 2017 11:55
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>; Christian Huitema <
> huitema@huitema.net>; Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>;
> 6lo@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
> pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> I also removed the administrative rejection, the return codes are now as
> follows:
> [...]
>    |   8   | Invalid Registered Address: The address being registered  |
>    |       | is not usable on this link, e.g. it is not topologically  |
>    |       | correct                                                   |
>
>
>
> As worded, it's not clear to me how this option is substantially different
> from the administrative rejection option. Could it be scoped more tightly,
> e.g., renamed to "Address topologically incorrect"?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email