[Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889)

Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com> Tue, 03 August 2010 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2933A6A11 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UWkRICRRU5U5 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C013A69E5 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so1728751pzk.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to:x-mailer; bh=Ukotrwstr8h3w0a7f9LhmK3Iv4wErV643bdDs32dyBc=; b=jyIsHiFMrZ501XPjBmKS0aRygfXp9xDnnlMj1ReWX6+M7ZOf0YNtHjjO0eZOjA5BrC S8X7olldvngIgdhsIq21E9ykGOwf9NRA+RU01YXopKBWgTHdJGrfozQ9vQSzqyBt9a3I zm1pjrdTeB3cs/7njcm1tv0Qxc4A9AhmLX4rc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=or/TYjDgWme/2EYK+zROFr8vG5uw/nkgD2k33QfZQ+8yLhiSHbNIFWgWbncZYYMhTs X/jx/LsTg9FqipxcFllY1j4UcrbXLlj4K8Po8ItzMkgV3gHmcl7WU93UGvZA0fM3vZRu o01CaWAwUYrXFP+rRgqGidIxiULQoit30WN1E=
Received: by 10.114.103.7 with SMTP id a7mr8165102wac.184.1280794449290; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.18.100] (adsl-99-49-9-50.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [99.49.9.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 33sm12402535wad.6.2010.08.02.17.14.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 17:14:05 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E21BA9FD-4715-4DA8-9586-9380126763E2@gmail.com>
References: <4C528979.7010006@oracle.com>
To: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Autoconf Chairs <autoconf-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: [Autoconf] WC consensus call for RFC5889 modifications (Fwd: Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889)
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:13:42 -0000

Hello all,

At the IETF78 meeting, we had the rough consensus to adapt 
the Erik's modification for RFC5889 in the room. 

To confirm our consensus on the list, we ask the WG consensus call 
for adaption of Erik's modification for RFC5889.

The detailed modifications can be found at the attached email below. Thanks Erik.

Please vote for your opinion before "Aug 9th 12:00PM (PST)". 
If you have any objections, please give us clear reason and propose your text.

thanks in advance,
Thomas, ryuji




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@oracle.com>
> Date: 2010/07/30 01:12:41GMT-07:00
> To: autoconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Forgot one [Was: RFC 5889
> 
> 
> Please double-check this, but I think it has all the list of changes that Jari said verbally.
> 
>  Erik
> 
> ----
> 
> Change the title
> FROM
>                IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
> TO
>                A Router Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
> 
> In section 5:
> OLD:
> Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
> requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
> requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
> only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
> in [RFC1136]).
> 
> Configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing domain
> satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
> uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
> stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain.  This
> suggests the following principle:
> 
> o  an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
>   with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
>   least within the routing domain.
> NEW:
> Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
> requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
> requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
> only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
> in [RFC1136]).
> Routing protocols that do not require unique IP addresses within the
> routing domain utilize a separate unique identifier within the routing
> protocol itself; such identifiers could be based on factory assignment
> or configuration.
> 
> Nevertheless, configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing
> domain satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
> uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
> stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain.  As a result, the following principle allows for IP autoconfiguration to
> apply to the widest array of routing protocols:
> 
> o  an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
>   with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
>   least within the routing domain.
> 
> In Section 6.1:
> OLD:
> o  There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
>   unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to
>   reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a
>   router with an IP address).
> NEW:
> o  In general there is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
>   addresses are unique across multiple links, however link-local
>   addresses using an IID that are of the modified EUI-64 form are
>   globally unique. Thus if link-local addresses are used to reliably
>   identify routers then they must be of the modified EUI-64 form.
> 
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf