Re: disagreement on which OS should change
Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Sat, 27 April 2019 17:41 UTC
Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 D7F421201A3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bjWFjMuxIcdP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x341.google.com (mail-wm1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::341]) (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 5B52D12018C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x341.google.com with SMTP id 26so7982234wmj.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DBKntbKyC9lMUCmxBn6zzwgku2tmLUXAGRNpE9XijMs=; b=IPzqMfnS/nJgOTP5Nc8pIj8LhQwLEyzk0l458PSDLDlD8hfWA2jR/jq8dZVmwqfMWE k8Wab4XRSGHHRhK+EErEhEeJ1MaOYU/ogyx+lhgYoOtFTYLQ3dU2uXeURtNX8memtCT9 8RBn/OeAz0Ua7SoKB8Es5mpwYqSvFVUNRUaLS48nfqAXfye9nYJGRZpIcCllQ3MwwgW0 oTiYgrYsUdggnGEmdq0P9T84MBx2ZskIzVCCI2hSzz8u4ksGa95MGliITOs9J2PxqZhy FVWdzlDss9LXnbQZCKXX0g4rKcxZn8NKv55Fj3OliY04XFGAArhYDDDGQijIor9uZqi2 WSiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DBKntbKyC9lMUCmxBn6zzwgku2tmLUXAGRNpE9XijMs=; b=MfjkMP+EMNm6xmEx+xw2orW5/ZNLu/LBEl35KnYm8WatySl5KZDD7C0p73dKjSD/5/ +K9XqgVGd4AO1iARhCxwKZHM8OskTc9sU/x/f2n7rxxUaoE7etvPeB+9v2yZOVPcMV4d jml6qIQM7zt6RCfeKPkaDc1YCeBZddiKJYpC544G/RPD1okfjy6a3vyKpXWm8RGwAKdI //TeFGaHXXWnGH8PedEelQLGcsYZTHqw2Klpb3A8cTsDrHin0HujcEGnaX/JUz5W/Tgn j4P09u2CKU96tCrZ9I1vdZYJB8QTtgH9bNmy6x0bt38CfuLCrLvuBldVrF58So72yj0z KFuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWU0AiaprMwuAMoOc2TaNH47fjuLB3gOGKqIu/yvJG722oRTy23 16cSuDmaU8vd5FUOCY6Fjwg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw0jj9lHM9WYa0Ch2gAQj2YFjw02UNI1ym88JOEyxIesykQ2/DuZ3cd8UmoB+9MuWfvdzzdmA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:22d1:: with SMTP id 17mr11003944wmg.62.1556386886823; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5e:a1af:76ab:19ff? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:5e:a1af:76ab:19ff]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c131sm10304885wma.31.2019.04.27.10.41.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: disagreement on which OS should change
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANMZLAYjDKoM=E7iuRmoim30uCiUt0gz23AvdDO6rzEx7Vkphw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:41:18 -0700
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D878131-4E30-4DF4-8CCA-76E40F0DF8E8@gmail.com>
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> <CAJE_bqeahhEax1GvrgdDiCkDRhUpqu-9NpR4sYpEuqwYU==WZQ@mail.gmail.com> <96291515-b70b-5451-d3e4-e44f25cd93bb@gmail.com> <5D35DDCE-1A41-4BEA-B178-344B70AC41D4@gmail.com> <CANMZLAYjDKoM=E7iuRmoim30uCiUt0gz23AvdDO6rzEx7Vkphw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DWvveJT-DmoIg1UIeuElrmzOIqs>
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: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 17:41:31 -0000
> On Apr 27, 2019, at 12:54 AM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't understand this discussion. LL addresses exist in the absence of any routers and are created spontaneously by hosts with no external inputs. Therefore, there is no such thing as an identity for a link, there is only an interface identifier which is strictly local to the host. Even in a point to point case, there is no reason that the two hosts would agree about the link's identity. +1 Bob > > Regards > Brian > (via tiny screen & keyboard) > > On Sat, 27 Apr 2019, 17:13 Gyan Mishra, <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: > Alex > > I agree and that completely makes sense what you are saying. > > So with RFC 4291 all hosts for all subnets we’re actually sitting on the same fe80::/64 even though different physical or logical interfaces and each host was made unique by the EUI64 station id. > > So with the new draft if all hosts would sitting on the same global unicast subnet now also sit on the same unique Link local subnet. So the RA for Default route sent to all hosts on the subnet would be this new LInk local set on the router > > Subnet 1: > Router A fe80:1::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:1::1 ::/0 sent to host > > Router B fe80:1::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:1::1 ::/0 sent to host > > Host A fe80:1::EUI64 bia > > Host B fe80:1::EUI64 bia > > > Subnet 2: > Router A fe80:2::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:2::1 ::/0 sent to host > > Router B fe80:2::EUI64 bia vrrp vip fe80:2::1 ::/0 sent to host > > Host A fe80:2::EUI64 bia > > Host B fe80:2::EUI64 bia > > Gyan > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 26, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Le 25/04/2019 à 18:09, 神明達哉 a écrit : > >> At Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:41:35 +0200, > >> Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto: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. > > > > I think it is the latter: the OSs that dont support fe80:1:: should change. > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If time permits: > > > > I would like to make a note here. I know that AD and Chairs read these messages. I would like to invite consideration of these messages, if time permits, when pondering about which way the balance tips. > > > > My reading of these discussions is that: > > > > - one person, or small group of persons, indeed highly knowledgeable, consider fe80:1:: to be a violation of standards, an RFC to be right, one OS to be right, manual config of LLs to be wrong. > > > > - probably more persons, or at least several persons, consider fe80:1:: to not be a violation of standards, some other OSs to be right, manual config of LLs to be right, 'liberal in what you accept', 'open minded'. > > > > (some person is in both categories). > > > > This is my reading of the discussion. > > > > Alex > > > > > > 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 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: about violation of standards Kerry Lynn
- about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Suresh Krishnan
- Re: about violation of standards Kerry Lynn
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Kerry Lynn
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards Fernando Gont
- Re: about violation of standards 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: about v… 神明達哉
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: about violation of standards 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Nick Hilliard
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: about v… Mark Smith
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- RE: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Philip Homburg
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: about violation of standards Brian E Carpenter
- Re: about violation of standards Gyan Mishra
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Andrews
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards - security matte… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 神明達哉
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Ole Troan
- Re: about violation of standards Nick Hilliard
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Philip Homburg
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Ole Troan
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… 神明達哉
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Andrews
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 Gyan Mishra
- Re: encoding link ID in link-local addrs (Re: abo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Smith
- Re: about violation of standards - fe80::1/128 Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Mark Andrews
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs - prob… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Mark Smith
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Mark Smith
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Yucel Guven
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Kerry Lynn
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: about violation of standards Erik Kline
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Manfredi (US), Albert E
- Re: Globally Unique Link Local Addresses (Re: abo… Gyan Mishra
- Reinventing Site-Locals (Re: easy to remember add… Mark Smith
- Re: Reinventing Site-Locals (Re: easy to remember… Mark Smith
- Re: Reinventing Site-Locals (Re: easy to remember… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Gyan Mishra
- Re: about violation of standards Fernando Gont
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Brian Carpenter
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Ole Troan
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Fernando Gont
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: easy to remember addresses and /etc/hosts and… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Gyan Mishra
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change 神明達哉
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Bob Hinden
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Gyan Mishra
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Bob Hinden
- Re: Reinventing Site-Locals Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Tim Chown
- Re: disagreement on which OS should change Bob Hinden
- Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Philip Homburg
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Ole Troan
- RE: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards Philip Homburg
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- RE: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)
- Re: encoding Subnet ID in link-local addrs (Re: a… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: about violation of standards Erik Kline
- Re: about violation of standards Erik Kline