[IPv6]Re: RFC 4291 and Site-Local Addressing

[Kyle Ouellette <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeremy,

Yes, I see your point about the policy table. Is there harm in leaving 4291
2.5.7 more for historical purposes? New implementations shouldn't apply
special behavior to the fec0::/10 prefix, but should 4291 continue to be
verbose about this?

As for the AA 1.5 tests, they're not fully redundant. They provide checks
to ensure implementations don't interpret RFC 3879 as a "drop".

Thanks,
Kyle

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 1:50 PM Jeremy Duncan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Kyle-
>
>
>
> Not a problem per se. Just that if someone were to implement site local
> addressing in their network, the prefix policy tables would not treat it as
> global unicast addressing. It would treat it in precedence below IPv4, ULA,
> etc.
>
>
>
> So I’m asking if the 6man would like to take up a full deprecation of site
> local addressing to remove it from 4291 and potentially 6724.
>
>
>
> In relation to the AA 1.5 tests, if the intent is to test it as GUI, then
> it’s a redundant test right?
>
>
>
>
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
> *From:* Kyle Ouellette <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2024 1:42 PM
> *To:* Jeremy Duncan <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [IPv6]RFC 4291 and Site-Local Addressing
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL] Verify links and attachments with sender.
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the problem you're describing and how it relates
> to the AA 1.5 tests. Can you provide more details on the problem you're
> facing?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 5:05 PM Jeremy Duncan <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Kyle, thanks but Address Architecture test case 1.5 merely tests that site
> local is being used. So an echo request and reply using it as the source.
> The problem is that RFC 6724 has moved it down to precedence 1 with label
> 11. So in essence a node conforming to 6724 would label it as a site local
> and not a standard global unicast right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Semper Fi,
>
> Jeremy Duncan
>
> Sent from my cell
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Kyle Ouellette <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2024 4:49:09 PM
> *To:* Jeremy Duncan <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [IPv6]RFC 4291 and Site-Local Addressing
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL] Verify links and attachments with sender.
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
>
>
> The IPv6 Ready Core tests you're referring to test that Site Local
> addresses are deprecated and not supported. Specifically this statement
> from 2.5.7: "The special behavior of this prefix defined in [RFC3513] must
> no longer be supported in new implementations (i.e., new implementations
> must treat this prefix as Global Unicast)."
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 4:27 PM Jeremy Duncan <jduncan=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hello 6Man-
>
>
>
> Is there any reason that Site local addressing fec0::/10 is still included
> in RFC 4291? Since the deprecation was done back in RFC 3879 in 2004, it
> still remains in 4291. Which also means all of the IPv6 Ready conformance
> and interoperability testing still requires these test cases.
>
>
>
> Is there any appetite to get a bis/update in place to do a removal of
> section 2.5.7 in RFC 4291?
>
>
>
>
>
> -Jeremy
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> List Info: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/[e-mail]/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kyle Ouellette
>
> Software Development Manager, IP Technologies
>
> UNH InterOperability Laboratory
>
> 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824
>
> [e-mail]
>
> www.iol.unh.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kyle Ouellette
>
> Software Development Manager, IP Technologies
>
> UNH InterOperability Laboratory
>
> 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824
>
> [e-mail]
>
> www.iol.unh.edu
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

Kyle Ouellette

Software Development Manager, IP Technologies

UNH InterOperability Laboratory

21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824

[e-mail]

www.iol.unh.edu