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> Wed, 06 October 2021 21:56 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 A905F3A097C; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:56:01 -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 YIQtTaTnEdKH; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:55:54 -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 BEEC73A0962; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD5418097; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:04:02 -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 MvHhlQpMGN2y; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:03:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E6318050; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:03:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CAB2C1; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 17:55:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Fus-ascii=3FB=3FPT9VVEYtOD9RPz1jMz04OXJpY19WeW5ja2U?= =?us-ascii?Q?=2FPQ=3D=3D=3F=3D?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9D5E9264-0A10-4A24-8F23-DB89EDE851B9@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>
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: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 17:55:46 -0400
Message-ID: <9043.1633557346@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/tv9CLLx5TY6N9oIiZdLIa8x8Un8>
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: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 21:56:07 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > On 6. Oct 2021, at 18:18, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >> Hi, at the CBOR WG meeting this morning, support for IPv6 LL scopes
    >> was the major topic.

    > YANG ietf-inet-types has zones for IPv4.
    > Shouldn’t we, too?

Are there any OSes and Applications that really know how to deal with having
IPv4-LL addresses on multiple interfaces?  And didn't IPv4 die awhile back?

If you really think we should do this for IPv4, I don't really object.
I just don't know what RFCs to cite.

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