IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: about violation of standards)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 25 April 2019 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 4D426120048 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 7FPI4RXEtiQT for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com (mail-wm1-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) (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 49BF612006F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id v14so36737wmf.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ra1Uzsvkc1/NMaOcNM6JdffiMzOzdSmTZTtD5QvIe10=; b=CRLpuPaXynbUHS7+kv8Z6dpBZyN9YQ/YW6K5b6laIURgshaAWERZR/7qzb49u5DE2d l6sotxJ4H471TQWQWHYuk1lkc07bfYXhUKfNY+ipV/L2x2P+yKMYAnYXYQdcORYF4O11 c2IasZwXDR3Dyuuac53gocThFnQZyuYSekmZEFn7DaGykxn2A7gGt5vHitXfuPpGPDm2 tUv8P7smd8eYgR5eA80CIlGamYfW4NP5Tce0zB9vNvsb/qXUHACdmDk/Jg2UkRDVeKTn VaGor9yO7H7+Dp38W17dc+5xiAXuvOiJ/vf2wOtG9qS2bgr7cQMSfo/vpThTJvn1+U6k lD7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUR/qYGVTjsxCl0acmrVWo93SGBamKEdu/ea7dPus6AIL5Gs24R SIhckEPALBzKbNjX7DhkvaejqOYL3jB37lF3JlI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwNRcj+xIUau5FvAe2ju8sSOsbC1xHHSrtSj1RmqQBfTfu4/4NFZ/tCVXY3RdB3e2kDTxki+hdF7jli4lCGI58=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1d4:: with SMTP id 203mr4159836wmb.101.1556208611287; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bb7f7606-2adf-e669-8bcd-e41f17800782@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd9frqX5-yeVPj8MYXpZ4737HqK1gmfD9cQV3A-Ea5HrQ@mail.gmail.com> <6bd5db47-408a-727e-5c13-f34a3465f986@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqfTLqRbLp4fLu2ASZuZ+4G5c2G+RXkO92kXfLgPTqBnng@mail.gmail.com> <EEF00EA7-2AAF-403F-99AD-1D53ED18E8B3@cisco.com> <CAJE_bqe8OXPWRDvXEY66gZHiBgv37OV67YB27WoEtq_VmBqieQ@mail.gmail.com> <3F852B26-FD19-445D-A8E9-94BCBB9BE7C1@gmail.com> <455C3D20-E71B-4DF4-837E-081964E3328A@gmail.com> <19275484-3fa5-7c4e-3624-b861ddea6e2f@gmail.com> <2B1FBA08-3DDB-4287-B2B4-11324334B7FC@employees.org> <CAJE_bqdg3wjbJOmB2iPij00yNXbES7Hj7WYtKH0vyY+9Lce3ow@mail.gmail.com> <6da1d50c-2835-d98e-2ab9-41cdd4d9f367@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6da1d50c-2835-d98e-2ab9-41cdd4d9f367@gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:09:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeahhEax1GvrgdDiCkDRhUpqu-9NpR4sYpEuqwYU==WZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: about violation of standards)
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078e87105875d0d1e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5CQJfsl-mCquHWJAlt1BecWzdNI>
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: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:10:16 -0000

At Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:41:35 +0200,
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> >  > That an implementation allows you to do something does not mean that
> > it is supported (in the product sense) nor that the RFC is wrong.
> >
> > Right, but I actually don't understand why we still have to have this
> > kind of conversation.  Almost all real-world implementations have some
> > glitch;
>
> The problem here would be to ask which of the OSs have the glitch: the
> ones that support fe80:1:: or the ones that dont?

Obviously the former.  The question itself is nonsense to me, equal to
a question asking which OS has the glitch: an implementation allowing
to send a packet with source=::1 outside of the node, or an
implementation that prevents it.

If you don't like to consider it to be a glitch, update RFC4291.  As
you've already seen it would be quite hard, but it's not necessarily
impossible.  Insisting a standard violation behavior is not a glitch
because of the existence of the behavior is just a time wasting
effort.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email