IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-01.txt

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30363A20D5 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 3YfE-kNbItuk for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 4A2B73A0D55 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id e2so4344435plh.8 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MTDbvQKLlb1qqujsM6Z6vfRm2hiLSErVc6t4GURF2Dc=; b=sqpdJbjOnu4LyeqLxp4r0g272mpeHOluaoAFA5OFoeW5FDG1pDH8hPn4ThXA+OCH9u L2DQQcVg7QNGBc10CrOgW+rzT1TaZDr7FGBCjdRJ3qydB9t9MNszEE8svxbBPOjNeevE a0dkad5RE+QwcUA8k3AqcymUJAZRAMBA9HsiyE8id//j60Fn25PK3OuG0IaY1twd7SG9 YhZMn8MhlC7I0TRelkmUa0QAKa1Hi+cSn0h3TKTz2GmjRNo8sOcMgure74ZdD3yc/F++ JFenQV5Q/ob7zfLmay32i4I8fYnIURd8HPZyhw4/3EuRiC1jEFLDJu3qV0mKB6kK6ps9 vyIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MTDbvQKLlb1qqujsM6Z6vfRm2hiLSErVc6t4GURF2Dc=; b=MwGCvEZUKovE1mWnW/znmuU5qBrH7oJh+M+0kIpKC54Ohn91HCX32MajjgskLHW5VF M26zUyOy9YtIg/WlwG5ZRIlJfmhD9nBDVjUVYcTbB8pO5km1JLc9DiHERh95w2wPFevh /C/VLccxZrD16HYS3Ui4IVqhY2mfsJitNQVtYNx2Jc//N+5MTBySLtgWNnmzysNk30kk br7QIlbHC2wQcy0jMNEn3p2gwpy4uneSvo0guPA/qOiEWhm8RetIBPNfPC8GbgeM/adJ mSzw7AT02m5PSP3kDS5OiPC+jAtkwulXXOoR6tj7GhEM0tSklNy8j26PDP7B9mG6E8AR VFoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZN5mor/aE92lJmwOhSvWaa1R3jZ8LWa/qJAADLRQiG6CnaHPg hfk1veRZCmPY2EAhVW7tnpB74GZJ6qs1O9/pCaE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwY6+rN2FKaAiycLoQOyQJIdWAIVfqS2Jd0bgDf8YudYPFCL++Z79yhe/dsbzsQ+xNIusSJeQBDLJYek6lgDNI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b20e:b029:eb:47e3:5977 with SMTP id t14-20020a170902b20eb02900eb47e35977mr403991plr.67.1618336450830; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161799373903.21494.5029385648255827216@ietfa.amsl.com> <87y2drmgxz.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAF4+nEGu1Uj12UNz03meFTf7hXsZ1sxvfTHsPNtcRLt+Dncecg@mail.gmail.com> <87mtu2qqgr.wl-jch@irif.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87mtu2qqgr.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:53:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+77ZCnVYJnOtYWfZconmt2b=WhZGjX0dKW+dfzzWm2KiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004764cb05bfde5185"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/eeAbOi4TUABtTUJhaBtf2arTR4Q>
Subject: Re: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-01.txt
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:54:17 -0000

I'm OK with RFC 3927 and 7600 not being mentioned.

David

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 6:11 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:

> > I can see questions about using a dummy address, since it implies
> > multiple routers with the same address. But I really don't see any
> > problem with a dynamically allocated IPv4 address (a la RFC 3927) as
> > another example of a way to meet the requirement.
>
> Ok, let's see if I read the group right.
>
> 1. David suggests that I mention 192.168.0.8, the dummy address assigned
>    for 4rd (RFC 7600).
>
> 2. Donald wants me to suggest dynamic allocation from the RFC 3927 range.
>
> Concerning 1, the current draft explicitly uses the term "dummy address",
> which is a nod in David's direction.  On the other hand, I'm a little
> reluctant to mention RFC 7600 explicitly, since I'd rather we avoid being
> associated with packet translation techniques.  Yuck.
>
> Concerning 2, I'm going to add a mention of dynamically drawn addresses,
> but I'm going to avoid mentioning 3927 explicitly, since I'm not sure that
> using 3927 addresses outside of the local link is legit.  Additionally,
> doing otherwise might imply that the conflict detection and defense
> mechanisms in that document are applicable (or desirable) in our context.
>
> Ok?  If not, yell!
>
> -- Juliusz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email