rfc4007 implementation question
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sun, 17 December 2017 10:38 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 0D5DD126C22 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 02:38:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ad3-rgIMaHE1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 02:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F14126557 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 02:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016E458C4C0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:38:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id DE409B0D4A8; Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:38:17 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:38:17 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: rfc4007 implementation question
Message-ID: <20171217103817.GA27808@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Qtf4OFWrVBzc_sDqFAbbx0hkjI8>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:38:24 -0000
Figure 1 of RFC4007 shows an example where a single link2 is attached to two interfaces - interface2, interface3. This is the one case we interface zones are different from link zones. Are there any implementations that suport this model directly ? Aka: Where a zone_id for the link scope would have no 1:1 equivalent interface id (or name) ? The implementations i have seen to support this case are all based on the creation of some virtual interface, then map the two underlying (physical) interfaces into it, and then the interface id of that virtual interface would map 1:1 to the link scope zone_id. And in result it seems interface IDs are used interchangeably with link scope zone_ids... Thanks --- tte@cs.fau.de
- rfc4007 implementation question Toerless Eckert
- Re: rfc4007 implementation question Brian E Carpenter
- Re: rfc4007 implementation question 神明達哉
- Re: rfc4007 implementation question Brian E Carpenter
- Re: rfc4007 implementation question 神明達哉