Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt>
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 20:14 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 99A4711E811E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wDX+DQAK2Mv4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889A611E82D6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id jh10so926614pab.17 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kTiwQIxHY9575kmMhaBag2SXpq2lJLXaUyYZWzl/1ws=; b=ptAKuLN/oi5Nt5OkAJwK+z+uOfw28dANbomVEoYqUCgSQ9ss3ReuvKvWb3AemZP8wR gU4cNqwkTw1LUTqcuAPWoXy3Kg/9nZP7oXmNTGTvJGN7dR5mvIqhpEfMLIs2TgGWyqYE /DGSe/yVXORK428PZ4qPFMsR9JcmUzm4eqGpc4yo3lHoau5JjMJptHPUA3j1GysmrX8+ kRCb4z0tNcm4L4p/lesh2wsBaPm3tiYsuvF5iQWMKYRyLXDan6ScC+4T9q0fFemdHSk/ AiX4Ml5TgdIb+0pajXLPWlKqnTkdr08HJUTbVKJ9a3hiO46/XJABNfy7WdGR510csy7j 0whQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.162.102 with SMTP id xz6mr40279424pab.0.1374610470285; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (93.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ep4sm43442155pbd.35.2013.07.23.13.14.26 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51EEE422.5080803@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:14:26 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt>
References: <FC6118A8-AC81-405E-A925-ED2E2B14C35B@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdQ3Kr8+J1Q1SP1D3VfR259Rz4Rx97SnZm08YSDzhOx2Q@mail.gmail.com> <51EDD7DE.8080901@gmail.com> <m2fvv5kcqq.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2fvv5kcqq.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:14:34 -0000
On 23/07/2013 18:32, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > At Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:09:50 +1200, > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I have one comment that may improve the clarity of the document: the >>> latter half of Section 4 is not very understandable to me: >>> >>> There is one case in RFC 4862 that requires additional consideration: >>> >>> "On the other hand, if the duplicate link-local address is not formed >>> from an interface identifier based on the hardware address, which is >>> supposed to be uniquely assigned, IP operation on the interface MAY >>> be continued." >> To be honest, I have great difficulty understanding this sentence, >> because I can't imagine any case in which continuing operation would >> be OK. It seems to me that disaster is guaranteed. However, somebody >> in the WG asked us to discuss this case. > > For example, there may be other, manually assigned address that is > unique in the subnet. Ah. Now I understand what is intended, but the text needs to say: ...IP operation on the interface MAY be continued _using another address that is not a duplicate_. OK, we can clean up the text in the next version. Brian Or you might assign some once you notice the > duplicate. If it's less likely due to MAC address collision, I see it > makes some sense (but RFC 4862 does not necessarily recommend it; it > just does not prohibit it by saying MAY). > > (BTW, I noticed the phrase of ", which is supposed to be uniquely > assigned," in the above snippet from RFC 4862 may be confusing. I'm > not sure how it was inserted, but it's probably a copy-paste error). > >>> The main intent of this part of RFC 4862 was that if a link-local >>> address created based on a MAC address is detected to be a duplicate, >>> that very strongly suggests there's MAC address collision, and it's >>> better to take some specific action (i.e, disabling the IP operation). >>> In all other cases, the IP address duplicate may or may not be because >>> of MAC address collision, and since there's no strong indication of >>> MAC address collision, RFC 4862 leaves it to the implementor (hence >>> the MAY). >> But it doesn't matter. If you have duplicate IIDs, you have >> unintentionally created a link-local anycast address, whether it's >> MAC collision or otherwise. Surely there is no way forward? > > See above. Surely there's no way of using that link-local address any > more (I believe RFC 4862 is very clear about that). But there can be > other reasonable way of recovery from that situation at layer 3 if > it's not MAC collision. > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya > . >
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Randy Bush
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Mark ZZZ Smith
- 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Bob Hinden
- 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Bob Hinden
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Liubing (Leo)
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Bernie Volz (volz)
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Templin, Fred L
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> JINMEI Tatuya
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- RE: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Fuyu (Eleven)
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Mark ZZZ Smith
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Ralph Droms
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Jouni Korhonen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Jouni Korhonen
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Roland Bless
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Ole Troan
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> Brian E Carpenter
- Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-ug-01.txt> james woodyatt