Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 30 October 2017 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7596A13F54A for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23a36qXgjaI8 for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E946D13836B for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s75so12514044pgs.0 for <>; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3jwrdH/lcEcepNHzvubQ7DdFl/xfLM4bfqZoFOdfJzI=; b=ZqkDn+dgAJu6PBb5UKtTJVFgw9GOMElmEXEeCH3TxZhFitltTioZQDN449e/4xIgBj 9Uk/blQldmagHo9B50Q/olOEH8tiR0tAYtv/EiOM8ogqpMg+X0THVBA13bod+/quWpV+ HFnSkqurXVoFsW8cT/CPggKq2KV8ZVk4cPR3IiKL+wjZV67fmVH+3QIB5Y1JVbZvn1uU s8wFFi/x2M4gllZSoc/p0n6OthTvgmPIrWLEAN/MaIReDNPPqaPYloI2qL+elDrJ+zDf ewDmomqCTABtraFDpNlEM5bbfM8+FGjaikrVUDAVoCTNSkH7iPafe9VZl8c8hviT4pGe 9k3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3jwrdH/lcEcepNHzvubQ7DdFl/xfLM4bfqZoFOdfJzI=; b=iZ41h22DAv3P3oHKyrOol7WlEPzhu/fBkCt+Vei4Rk/9i3UrGgbtFkQJ3Z5CnrnXNH 957DvMxfpNX0NUv8U4K9rSkTxfdjdTeBfyImFkyrtA+E5cmC2NjZYXwl9OBAwsJj+Jim fzCV6szuRgBtW2onMw5Jtxikx10Qlxutoe+R5hGLGZA5zpOqXFkbbzd9o5ydT7PAUc8r ooH6ZQcquVCVENjaiiyi9yflUWOv4dkJ5gOzky5xSwOjCIIwwYlWr2L/GAv4CV4LJ1B7 MR6v58MqVx4wfVEoKG4kbkQis8Uil6HZeneyAQL17LBKTxN74+FHMaGXQjc5521gR7qz NXRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXRe8p36eyUJVLhdtMan7jMWOMLAe/UE09Z5lPXgaD1V7Eh/241 IAZICZGm6FzSHLPcuWbwPkTLaw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SG1itJkyDCTPylb2XQm7bE8vy44hJFcOA/hEQ0Uu/QQamFUwB7GfJnt0xWP7wcmPqAVdGZcw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n4mr8406425pgp.395.1509391779904; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id o22sm30832781pfi.85.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02.txt
To: 6man <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:29:37 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 19:29:42 -0000

Looks good. Three small points:

> 5.3.  Protecting a node from excessive EH options
> A host MAY disallow unknown options in destination options or hob-by-	
> hop options.  This should be configurable where the default is to	
> accept unknown options and process them per RFC2460.  If a packet	
> with unknown options is received and the host is configured to	
> disallow them, then the packet should be silently discarded.

Not sure why this still refers to 2460.

> 5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
>    "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
>    provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
>    each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
>    via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
>    connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
>    the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
>    order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
>    and SHOULD implement Type C host role.

I suggest that the last phrase should clarify that "Type C" is defined
in RFC 4191, because as written that is not obvious.

Are we sure that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs is an Informative reference?