IETF Logo Mail Archive

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))

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 October 2021 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 425343A0896; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:32:09 -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 qSSRngW-L6iW; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DF7B3A08A7; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FE61808D; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:40:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id yIvNwhrafeCQ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:40:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0B818085; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:40:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956F24D2; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "d3e3e3@gmail.com" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, "barryleiba@computer.org" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "cbor-chairs@ietf.org" <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR1101MB222228806BD87376FC6CC290B5B19@MWHPR1101MB2222.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <24367.1633460118@localhost> <1fcf3889-57d1-83f5-2913-51ae9155130b@gmail.com> <6442.1633537138@localhost> <MWHPR1101MB222228806BD87376FC6CC290B5B19@MWHPR1101MB2222.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 14:31:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4397.1633631514@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/lL5KcdThB3nEONUVAkr4DvkCKl4>
Subject: 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))
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 18:32:09 -0000

Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
    > - How often are zones actually used?  Would it not just be simpler to
    > always use a string interface identifier?

I don't think it would to always do that.
My use case is that I have a (GRASP) daemon that discovers peers on
particular interfaces, and it knows those interfaces by ifindex.
It then tells another daemon (IKEv2) about those peers.
If it did it by name, then that just forces both ends to do the
name<->ifindex mapping for no gain.  I could live with that though.

    > - Is "false" for a prefix length a better choice than using either -1 or null?

We've gone for null.

    > 54([44, h'20010db81233'])
    > 54([45, h'20010db8123f'])

    > ^- Should this be 44 rather than 45?  Because otherwise it looks like
    > it would parse to a different prefix.

We've fixed it.
I had some other wrong case in mind when I wrote 45 :-)


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status