Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15

Alvaro Retana <> Mon, 04 May 2020 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12B03A1002; Mon, 4 May 2020 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjooBPGlAc3j; Mon, 4 May 2020 13:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 313F83A1013; Mon, 4 May 2020 13:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y24so954309wma.4; Mon, 04 May 2020 13:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XAsOlUsDCget10uzOawQP7fSgqpV44BPVe3BVjCJ52U=; b=jg3lR+6n5RgxbLVnZwUeS6P86DyupliVsk42P9Ij5SBZ7X5BT2C0yW22QpHmqm0QEj wFX83cxSa9WniWBAQxNalu56oXrusfB3Q/EBsxQpuDAlvzdd9UNJmwr4o9ZN2Ocni/30 aoKHclndJ2Ajb3OY/naFBJy2hw6cXq7X0zWQEJ4xYKDRA2AqljKbMO5Bw1A7Rmrsm+/u +bhjTN/YM1x5QSHh8YWwuUvrnW8KakNgbETeNB1CIO2BmpreySvfozwD9q7CBMBiUUN3 AQX+2PTFh5VBnSGsKTc23oPzysG+DtoG1rNG0cbUW7Ey19pnfAFQcRYWRFOABlNe1Hk3 S8Gg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XAsOlUsDCget10uzOawQP7fSgqpV44BPVe3BVjCJ52U=; b=qINKCVDBFpSv+hJcH/aoPIxV8yAFn3fAPZuBMsiYC5gW3eFtad/RsJWjZFiZTKekJY zufrajwWBT6LK3JsEtgggDNwD0YK42Yb4p2PMciMo1OFd7bMzp4p1KvcVXcbvbrhAd5p OUt1NfsLuIyf0+5ZSlzVlQkpAh8c122isc9q9IWoKf32vFC+9O8/okJfg2N0HJ56uZOz XH2VfUVgxwwerJu7ln5CDuD9OhDCs8CLO0bZB1KfrakxAowWro36/tvFaGO91IoPAgvN HJODty8n7A6aMTJLSnnyR2IybC00Tl5tPZUnyMr81hq/hb10cPgnhEIBsakoyNhpRTDQ e/CA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubYik6q9+zN3QLg/CkPDcQ9WOvd7nfPJZqn2cwdEEvKf1iO4MLL EXEv5Uwfzs56y+6bAS/oc/aHKUYNEIJipnpyuHI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIJbcWBAFodgJGmGLJ/4I7DBYIAM+jX3gUR+n4ffuHZoz728ff16y74q1KLyGamx1FwjIAgbIyLJ3QrhY32w/k=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:28e:: with SMTP id 14mr17383658wmk.79.1588623721627; Mon, 04 May 2020 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Mon, 4 May 2020 13:22:00 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 13:22:00 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: John Scudder <>
Cc: idr-chairs <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009c041605a4d84825"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 20:22:08 -0000



I think that pointing at rfc4271 may be better; it explicitly talks about
the address being a host route, and it is akin to the NEXT-HOP…



On May 4, 2020 at 3:57:10 PM, John Scudder ( wrote:

Hi Alvaro,

On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:

428   o  The IP address in the sub-TLV's address subfield is not a valid IP
429      address (e.g., it's an IPv4 broadcast address).

[major] What is a "valid IP address"?  The text above says that
link-local are not allowed...and that a host address is expected...and
that the address must "belong" you added broadcast addresses.
Anything else?  Is a multicast destination "valid"?  Is there a
reference that can be added here to avoid having to define it?

This problem has been around from time immemorial; for example RFC 4271 has
a couple of places where it says things like

   Syntactic correctness means that the NEXT_HOP attribute represents a
   valid IP host address.

I remember wrestling with this in years past, but I’m not sure I ever came
up with a good solution. The best reference I can find is RFC 6890,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries”, which defines what we generally
refer to as “martians”. Using that, perhaps the rule could be rewritten
something like this?

"o The IP address in the sub-TLV’s address subfield is listed in the
relevant Special-Purpose IP Address Registry [RFC6890] as either not a
valid destination, or not forwardable.”

In practice this would probably be implemented by using the
implementation-specific “martian” list, but this gives us a way to cite it
normatively. By the way, this nominally makes the text about link-local
redundant, since both the v4 and v6 special-purpose registries include