IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 11 August 2015 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D1B1ACE55 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 UqVNCJsfXHWL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (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 90DFA1ACDD3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iodb91 with SMTP id b91so150716201iod.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hEmklEGuCEP+2MQoNhe3BijHr7LXg2+ZADvgt66mxaE=; b=fZ/N06YVkLRAbYzAUa+ZR1WZABKiHN57bPbWbCy0JtAsPfgv5t4GUPMA4RBTNjirA3 clgG8Gr6uroLdVm50xUH7mSP6BA8ziLWKB4qP/RfodX19RgQD2sBbqSkfDdc2+FZSI+c oJ1QQdN5OpeWh1e+IBUEQVShYN8xDofQtHv/oZDd0Lxbm4mkcH6BTPOcGMu6tow3moMT giLnkwTELR8Wdnwm/Fimj4Ndxm6LWOKxurxI4OEhAu0GEXDFY/FNafJph2T+lf3tA+2o t0crMjNcOP3/b3HEDkM0fXkItoW1l45VwSIep+Btiv28awNX4uFbGw0ZsyENM/edRdX0 P02Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.27.18 with SMTP id b18mr27382822iob.178.1439316258036; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.143.7 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B2E1EDB4-8581-4160-BC5C-827FAEFD86F9@employees.org>
References: <20CE2629-7D40-4B5B-833E-4A401308027F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0aQ8yQR+2GyuVXJS0DrJasmqFz6RLQcodrCW982pNVGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wMNuPe5mmjDx5xG+3GmN-k47gsabiMQX56fiT+Kk-QcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2AJ4+cvPk-XDzuxehCP+Pw-nUngxhaVMYwUvQJDK8ExA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfb-8SBc0_f+tBfSST7-StQp_ug27r=ntRAmfjPwj=rmA@mail.gmail.com> <B2E1EDB4-8581-4160-BC5C-827FAEFD86F9@employees.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:04:17 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Mj3fLsn--UU2m-Arced7To4Knxc
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeCp7jx1=ZZj2s7WKPpjQtS3mNkzgHxH3HovNFFj_pi9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/29Hk26q1LfMSFyVHjfnioQ-Iwas>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:04:20 -0000

At Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:18:49 +0200,
Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> > I don't have a strong opinion on whether to allow link-local
> > addresses per se, but if we allow that, I think we should clarify
> > which link (or link zone, in RFC4007 terminology) that link-local
> > address belongs to. [...]
>
> it can’t possibly apply to a different link as there wouldn’t be any way to signal that.

I personally agree, but I still thought it's better to be noted
explicitly *if we mention link-locals explicitly*.

> it isn’t obvious to me that common resolver libraries support link-local addresses?

It would depend on implementation details and on the definition of
"support", but I wouldn't be surprised if it looks like working as
long as the host implementation supports the concept of the default
zone IDs and enables the feature (although in that case it could use
the wrong link zone).  In this case, the resolver library doesn't need
any extra "support" beyond the generic support for IPv6.

In addition, from a quick look, FreeBSD's libc implementation
internally uses getaddrinfo(), so it should work perfectly fine with
handling link-local address for the correct link zone, if, for
example, the textual link-local address specified in /etc/resolv.conf
uses the extended textual format for scoped addresses described in
RFC4007.  And, its rtsold seems to support that textual format.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email