Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 22 February 2021 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 9FD9D3A2108 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:27:16 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, 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 Jgi0g7PF0e18 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 449553A2104 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.214.12.170] (77.16.220.170.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.220.170]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B705D4E11AC7; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:27:13 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-87C9F7FC-C3AC-49AF-B7D0-463D3F51A52C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:27:09 +0100
Message-Id: <9A505AD0-93C2-4CFC-A779-7985585FE2E6@employees.org>
References: <CALZ3u+YPnpdjMQfikKh7dfCQt0nPOVahP9LHgQKfk5ab_yg1Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Daniel Ginsburg <dginsburg@gmail.com>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALZ3u+YPnpdjMQfikKh7dfCQt0nPOVahP9LHgQKfk5ab_yg1Zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0jignf_hSBA8hPdWZYZq7aA06eo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:27:17 -0000


> On 22 Feb 2021, at 23:12, Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Peace,
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 12:41 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> It’s perfectly valid to send a packet with a link-local source and a global destination address, as long as the interface with the global address is on the same link.
> 
> 
> I, too, think so, but RFC 4443, Section 3.1, says that a Destination Unreachable Message should be sent in that case.
> 
> Which some of the (famous) vendors who have read the 4443 but haven't taken a look on the 4007 are already doing.

And this is in the case where both SA and DA are assigned to interfaces connected to the same link?

I struggle to see how the paragraph in 3.1 can be misinterpreted that way. Open a bug report with the vendor in question perhaps? Or name them here. 
It’s not obvious to me that the proposed text in the errata makes it clearer by introducing “scope zone”. 

Cheers 
Ole