Re: [babel] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07: (with COMMENT)

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Éric.

> ## Section 1
> Is there a reason why IPv4 link-local addresses, 169.254/16 RFC 3927, are not
> mentioned in this section ? They could easily be used as next IPv4 hop as the
> fe80::1234:5678 in the example.

Yes.  IPv6 link-locals have all the desired properties for a next-hop:
they almost always exist (at least after DaD), they are stable, they are
unique with very high probability.  IPv4 link-locals, on the other hand,
are typically assigned by a potentially fragile userspace daemon, they
tend to come and go as DHCP triggers, and they are non-unique with
significant probability.

In short, while they are useful for their intended usage (locating your
closest printer), I don't feel they are robust enough to be used at layer 3.

> ## Section 2.2
> 
> "If no IPv6 next hop exists, then the Update MUST be silently ignored.", would
> this behaviour make operations/debugging more complex ?

Removed "silently", which aligns this document with Section 4.6.9 of RFC
8966.

> ## Section 8
> 
> Should there be a "contributor" section for Théophile Bastian ?

No objection if that's the way it's usually done, although I feel that the
current acknowledgments gives suitable credit.

-- Juliusz