Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 07 October 2021 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F226B3A0C60; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 02:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6_g8DUOoFpjP; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 02:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BAFF3A0C58; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 02:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a8ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HQ5v52RH5z2xk2; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:41:53 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20211007064338.vkrqz4emjh2ztrg2@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:41:52 +0200
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, cbor@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, =?utf-8?Q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 655292512.917105-15cff5f5091c296d8dfa1ea3887a232e
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6EE42BD-E08D-4E29-86CD-F4861B590D30@tzi.org>
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <24367.1633460118@localhost> <1fcf3889-57d1-83f5-2913-51ae9155130b@gmail.com> <6442.1633537138@localhost> <9D5E9264-0A10-4A24-8F23-DB89EDE851B9@tzi.org> <9043.1633557346@localhost> <372df336-eb01-de6d-2e11-e094b9ff7cfd@gmail.com> <4C91B412-C484-458E-BDA6-0AEDAF8EA774@tzi.org> <20211007064338.vkrqz4emjh2ztrg2@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/BP-HVc77lcbKaXyNIlAymOsHr5c>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?Supporting_IPv6_Link-Local_with_scope_=28was_Re?= =?utf-8?q?=3A_=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-cbor-network-add?= =?utf-8?q?resses-09=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29=29?=
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 09:42:02 -0000

Thank you!

I can’t find zones in 2851, but InetAddressIPv4z is in 3291 (of 2002 vintage, which also mentions InetAddressIPv6z in the Section 9, Changes) and 4001 (which we could reference alongside RFC 6991).  SNMP InetAddressIPv4z (or InetAddressIPv6z) only supports a numeric zone index, which is a 32-bit (Unsigned32 as per RFC4001 InetZoneIndex, which is mentioned in the RFC 4001 Section 8, Changes) number, but I think the generality of RFC 6991 (and the symmetry of the IP versions) wins here.

(RFC 3291 mentions v4-mapped IPv6 addresses as a source of zoned IPv4 addresses.  Thinking about it, that’s exactly where I have used them.)

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2021-10-07, at 08:43, Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:40:24AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On 7. Oct 2021, at 00:44, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That's probably because there are none. As far as I know, there is no
>>> "Scoped architecture for IPv4" RFC. I don't know why there is YANG support.
>> 
>> Zones are this gift that keeps on giving.
>> 
>> If we are doing zones, we need to do them like YANG.
>> I would have a strong objection against including them but then doing them differently.
>> Maybe we should simply reference RFC 6991 as well.
>> 
>> Jürgen:  Do you remember why ipv4-address has a zone ID (called “zone index”)?
>> 
> 
> The YANG definitions were derived from the SNMP definitions. I think
> the first RFC having support for zoned IPv4 addresses in the network
> management world was RFC 2851 (published June 2000). I vaguely recall
> that we had several side meetings during the draft writing stage where
> people pointed to other work (that may have led to things like RFC
> 3927 later on) and/or they pointed out that the need to disambiguate
> IP addresses also exists in the IPv4 world. I think people also
> pointed to routers running multiple links using the same non-global
> (e.g., private) address spaces.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor