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))

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 October 2021 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@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 052603A080B; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 li6vFfyCiLCb; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x229.google.com (mail-oi1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (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 BCE823A080A; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x229.google.com with SMTP id g125so40574oif.9; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 18:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q2aDSt+qhoLTz/+txRoGJh8mmmj8Oz1RiF8A/JLHk9g=; b=ZUV3XSvJpG8SKICYVN9sJ2Q4hvOyXAbeaiL5eRGyD7NT1v+wuRXWFJqMa8Zi7gmDfU 0XB2kPVFAQJWV48D3ux73yU+2/CAsEx9fEKHXyQU/PNi+51ey59wcoYBjvkZPUP7M0BV qpJfze7jimGZ0J/2ZTuq42fH51GWw0pKMNGbbQj0h3T0oiO8e/iiPzNBw2b9ejmEYNba JKCqfHkKSVO7gy+Niv7QkusGfTNpNDSn4XSFe8heBW/3SvOjwPvKlVal/DUt2WroI5Kv iLU3H7oXEh3EpvQLzPSvjNN3gfdt/Ir6d7CmJ4H8qhiZ3u/mEVzApkvLMa/G2dtL8gqo 479g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q2aDSt+qhoLTz/+txRoGJh8mmmj8Oz1RiF8A/JLHk9g=; b=OyK+g18F6R8TGOYoYQLm4Irc/juE2G+IXjahwL3jK2PUTpBiw77q0A8lAJTzL+9Us4 mfHBCJwwvGdeNC54NfLuQwxmI/bMslBmFrPTdk2F5ofqiuUf6J9VX6A6RxXKpR56WrCe Fk/SuQPtpI0UE0DgF0K7cFwKrZBKg9gf0t9L36DW7uw8xyg5eoja4Bu2ezsS/zUVCnL7 uRBlMDwMsfBfqjOF1tCYIEqjw/oEbhaeA4gxLOTqWiIn4G9V19lOmO990KEcJ59rUxwo xWvzmf6NRXSIH+nZgtvm8jt3Y/7Prp77stmfpIDCKvO9341CxvcwMyy3Ep/KrI1+wgri coXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XSGRepFwnvReiAfqoGRqno+fnrz4dlbNURwbgzebhXeMULXhw Xhzo8QZxT2MdJrAQYUMNRiHMYVwQs+xg0qOL9lo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSDaZCWNp6bJxQF9DjSi+LrbzT5pDiPnFZon1XxdCXRUDrApskwdfn6bRGeDBZx6P4qpVxy6FOG9kz779BLag=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:bd0b:: with SMTP id n11mr1203804oif.100.1633571934591; Wed, 06 Oct 2021 18:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <372df336-eb01-de6d-2e11-e094b9ff7cfd@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 18:58:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriVqvH0w_R0-uhM7qEWasu8=qLvgaZGTM9XvUO6yO_Qo_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e05f9a05cdb99ade"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/uA5L8vr1id__CNbnyzG9SICGNkE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 06:59:14 -0700
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 01:58:57 -0000

>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>

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.