IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-8@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 11 May 2022 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b28DE43C2@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE337C1594A7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2022 05:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6MvVj72wJ0n for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2022 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1856C1850C7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2022 05:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1nolHE-0000LLC; Wed, 11 May 2022 14:17:12 +0200
Message-Id: <m1nolHE-0000LLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "dthaler@microsoft.com" <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "richdr@microsoft.com" <richdr@microsoft.com>, "arifumi@nttv6.net" <arifumi@nttv6.net>, "tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "ek.ietf@gmail.com" <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, "evyncke@cisco.com" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "bob.hinden@gmail.com" <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "furry13@gmail.com" <furry13@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6724 (6971)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-8@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b28DE43C2@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20220510220633.4F768133111@rfcpa.amsl.com> <d65f2f8b52f14b029c4c8a44584670b9@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 May 2022 06:55:08 +0000 ." <d65f2f8b52f14b029c4c8a44584670b9@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 14:17:06 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-QLeprlfdG54AXMqLgjthfg2OwY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 12:17:53 -0000

In your letter dated Wed, 11 May 2022 06:55:08 +0000 you wrote:
>If all bits of IPv4 address would be compared (rule 9 section 6)
>Then DNS load balancing would not work for IPv4 - one IPv4 address would be al
>ways preferred, no round-robin.
>I do not see how to tell the host about the IPv4 mask on the remote end, it is
> not delivered by DNS.

It seems to me that in this RFC, the prefix length is taken from the local
source candidate address. Obviously, any IPv4 stack knows the netmasks of
it's own addresses.

But maybe you have a counter example where the proposed change causes
the wrong result?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email