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))

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 07 October 2021 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 929563A0BA0; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 20:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 mt5XImr34HVY; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 20:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (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 15D663A0B9D; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 20:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id q19so3648113pfl.4; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 20:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y802EYOc0aMcrlUniy96sbnOh2CbJCNn2/i3SXcBlVI=; b=QkLm7vZ0HsutIx9bELuRNwjxngi6JwpmS+PoSTTbbMd/fniC1PE0Kt5sfqU6WzyYDt Zbm+BPOF7JT4e5wI6H/wNl2w2Zn/WB18bBxPy6C0vZhYcl2OvbjuY+c+d9N2ANnwbFH/ 5N9ql6MCPZCLd9EymRfhIWYUrmNvSeCLYf28lJvc0Pjgc9pWyZX87ZAR9zdVTWawUcMR Tw47HejNlVY0CgZ+8q+vKucAwOfpaT0cgBSwTvQBmIFnFiZXRTIbZ2xhmxWRqNmboCac yBlwA4RM5XdR7StroG1+2vJxixKXMxH7i34D/Q0suagJMZWnj6TBglOUBVBTEwV4Npgv KSaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=y802EYOc0aMcrlUniy96sbnOh2CbJCNn2/i3SXcBlVI=; b=1Y4Z2wZuu1kUWxRpGJ/ZUFooBabIo10pBi92kxJC4iVGOr2ulMKPZuVtGMw3+WKqFy pfeyNwKb463DEkSaRxV3Habq65i9xyJEjw7t9L/wUHSB9r7vKPCFgTyBhXEQywQXpVvl sEsenk9Pmip+wZjmImqFjh04VUcY1+LXWUxQk386J+LuN2CxyJIIKeZi8Oi/+F0u7JrQ p6SNUzxkh6xXtxXNvZsEPbv/msUo2Zoo0h9Av4ypOm/+IJdOZqeIWLKStnkjEnYg8Bp7 kyOkYikJkdd/fSpx2HFwTrOPPwqKkcHSnTC4RzpFdMNdjYXzc65GQfcDHysJKBx6mMSJ PmdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533oCmBRSvw2gWATfyfagM7Gx3hyjGIIhequ9XJdC7wnwhyhuiX4 McgyOhANG8+4CyGrDZDGNAuOnjlQL14pjA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIy3J41so+y3lvi2MRKQhBs4+XiHxnnqTyOVJrck48FcVN9n7GDOmecroV7OOrbwuKPG6B/g==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:1450:0:b0:44c:7681:90b9 with SMTP id 77-20020a621450000000b0044c768190b9mr1996141pfu.42.1633577481100; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 20:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:11aa:d701:db7:d041:a2d:ce65? ([2406:e003:11aa:d701:db7:d041:a2d:ce65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y203sm7215597pfc.0.2021.10.06.20.31.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Oct 2021 20:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
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>, cbor-chairs@ietf.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> <CAMGpriVqvH0w_R0-uhM7qEWasu8=qLvgaZGTM9XvUO6yO_Qo_Q@mail.gmail.com> <711AC69A-6BD3-441B-8B80-A6D1EF24A2C7@tzi.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2b5e211f-19b9-4672-9695-df4b2af741aa@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:31:14 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <711AC69A-6BD3-441B-8B80-A6D1EF24A2C7@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/HbRhsRwPVifgJ036v-H5I3hfuiw>
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 03:31:26 -0000

On 07-Oct-21 15:13, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 7. Oct 2021, at 03:58, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To my knowledge the closest such thing would be RFC 3927.
>>
>> I've never seen anything like an extension of sockaddr_in to add the equivalent of sin6_scope_id, though it's not hard to imagine what would be 
required to make some "sin_scope_id" thing work.
> 
> Interesting.  While IPV6_MULTICAST_IF is defined in RFC 3493, the RFCs seem to be silent about IP_MULTICAST_IF.
> (This would be another case where an IP address would be combined with an ifindex, even if that is not called a “zone ID” there.)

Formally, IPv4 addresses are assigned to a host, but IPv6 addresses are assigned to an interface. And consequently, IPv6 has a scoped address architecture and a scoped multicast address architecture. I think it's normal 
that these are reflected in APIs and absent in IPv4 APIs.

I think the whole question of multicast addresses needs careful analysis, 
so personally I'd defer it for now.

   Brian