Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC
"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Thu, 15 May 2014 12:43 UTC
Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.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 E06151A0015 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 TN5834k5z37S for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4237D1A0072 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 05:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3676; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1400157795; x=1401367395; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=VNtAIoxkxFp0BCDkf+fJfdic4yRXffKM88DTxcqO7IQ=; b=mHPLZ4pWVis8O4taAtcGY2am9GxwxbjuGHzrc0DryA4XngD+3mPXFINP WhZ8glP2YKj06DJMLa0PPoD8VySLGWj+Um3aefAX4AOEnWGKMfdOMgA90 wrNiXzyP3SqPkrIlEgxppJdS4nj+BNSlnf7ByrOK5xKHEhItBtEbWW7g+ o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFAC22dFOtJA2G/2dsb2JhbABZgwaBJ4JowjABGXYWdIIlAQEBBCMRRRACAQYCGAICCBcHAgICMBUQAgQBDQWIQZAanCCkeBeBKoxxGBsHgnWBSwEDlViDeZMUgXeBP4Iw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1059,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="44100471"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2014 12:43:14 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4FChEeR028762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 May 2014 12:43:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.121]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 15 May 2014 07:43:14 -0500
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 Network) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHPSCghSqU/ORYRVEyPqUU/a1DTLZryUC6AgFALUQA=
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 12:43:13 +0000
Message-ID: <CF9A82D3.1B4A5%evyncke@cisco.com>
References: <20140324155135.3745.38775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53317A37.7040007@innovationslab.net> <CAJE_bqdwPGr07qcLhVYdwXx-z=MstbFHSd0vFvqgJX9czM+f7A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqdwPGr07qcLhVYdwXx-z=MstbFHSd0vFvqgJX9czM+f7A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
x-originating-ip: [10.55.185.75]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5D31608E6AA2514B8F096911AC2A4D08@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LuzASSQQBixLk78SuT4kRwI9Dbw
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only@tools.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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 15 May 2014 12:43:24 -0000
Jinmei, Thanks for spotting the poorly written text about LLA & scope. We have changed our I-D in order to reuse your proposal -éric & michael On 25/03/14 17:21, "神明達哉" <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote: >At Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:44:39 -0400, >Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote: > >> The IETF Last Call just started on this document. Please review >> and comment. > >I don't subscribe to the opsec ML so I'm only responding here. > >I have one small comment: I think this sentence of Section 2.3 needs >some more clarification/correction: > > However, this > static LLA configuration may be more complex to operate than > statically configured greater than link-local addresses, because the > link scope must also be considered, as in this example: 'BGP neighbor > fe80::1%eth0 is down'. > >- First off, it's not clear what "the link scope must also be > considered" means. With the example of fe80::1%eth0, I guess it > tries to talk about the ambiguity of LLAs. But, in principle, such > ambiguity is not specific to statically configured LLAs. So I also > guess it's also based on the implicit assumption that statically > configured interface id (such as "::1") tends to be less unique than > EUI-64 based IIDs, thus tends to be more ambiguous in practice. If > this is what this sentence tries to say, I agree, but one would need > quite a lot of speculation to reach this understanding. >- On the other hand, if this sentence tries to say something > different, then I didn't get it, so (assuming I'm not the only one) > it would need clarification anyway:-) >- assuming my guess in the first bullet is correct, "the link scope" > in this context is not really the accurate term per RFC 4007. This > should be "the link (zone) index" ("scope" means a type of scope, > such as "link" or "site"). I'd also suggest adding a reference to > the RFC, since the reader may not be familiar with the '%eth0' > notation. > >Combining these, I'd suggest (based on my guessed understanding) >revising the sentence as follows: > > However, this > static LLA configuration may be more complex to operate than > statically configured greater than link-local addresses, because > LLAs are inherently ambiguous for a multi-link node such as a > router and tend to be more so when the interface ID is configured > statically. To deal with the ambiguity, the link zone index must > also be considered explicitly, e.g., using the extended textual > notation described in [RFC4007] as in this example: 'BGP neighbor > fe80::1%eth0 is down'. > >-- >JINMEI, Tatuya
- Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt… Brian Haberman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt>… 神明達哉
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt>… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)