IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0)

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Mon, 26 March 2018 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
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 139CF126D74 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 6OcZ6AHeTiYQ for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C350126CC4 for <babel@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1522096459; bh=fOuYYc1EYJFBliSnQoeWSbjbVI7/xhvWZFI7BG2P6h0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=WxwDndYWoNwRIV3tK9R+3/1hk7WlawLQCVQ6jQkXD/tWTM3woF/IC+GITGQrt+suS qNJhSDnniuLvZPElQ9K6vbEMQ4B2aN1GM8AI93pPn6+2RSCHiEO9bK8HnjskrrS4fQ 3OvKT0agr3tFbDS1BfaXy4m+fncIcl219mWWpDJjvB/AKYcH9L8IaVXo6oYwQN80gs BBuExctdwFpgQoAUZ7t9gWoBPMPvr1i+lNAmt18hbIZaVyVheToQdal6RQQxVFeQln p+aJmCUbv4y1e+OPlNBZPwnKVKL3yU/zQ9hauKypDDEI8BuRZj2GrkiuKtKeYHCWvA dWYFtx4WDspVg==
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, Denis Ovsienko <denis@ovsienko.info>
Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr>
References: <87k1u1uekt.wl-jch@irif.fr> <16263df4d35.c134482a130573.7360272675488949721@ovsienko.info> <87r2o6k2jm.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:34:19 +0200
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87tvt2efuc.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/g7qh1iNvB2QLF0MvK6H2AU9C3Ws>
Subject: Re: [babel] Work to do (IHU TLV AE 0)
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:34:23 -0000

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

> For IPv4, this could be an address assigned to a different interface
> of the same node, but carrying Babel over IPv4 is NOT RECOMMENDED.

Seeing as this is the case, and that no implementations run on IPv4, the
IPv4 support is entirely theoretical. So I wonder whether it wouldn't
make more sense to drop it entirely from the spec?

-Toke

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email