IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC3484 destination address selection rule 2 is buggy

Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com> Fri, 14 March 2008 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E1C28C90E; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HIczJPD5OfPm; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566693A6F42; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178693A6F42 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M98mvdF-Z3TL for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yop.chewa.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297113A6AB5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leon.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:80:219:d2ff:fe07:5de5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39915AA7; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:09:23 +0100 (CET)
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Organization: Remlab.net
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC3484 destination address selection rule 2 is buggy
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:09:19 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <200803132244.m2DMiBxE048560@givry.fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <200803132244.m2DMiBxE048560@givry.fdupont.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200803141509.20120.rdenis@simphalempin.com>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Le Friday 14 March 2008 00:44:11 Francis Dupont, vous avez écrit :
> Perhaps some of us didn't remember but:
>  - I predicted the RFC 3484 will be always at least a phase back from
>   what we want.
>  - I predicted too it would take a not reasonable amount of time to
>   get the document published or updated.

IMHO, the real problem is that the various documents that added/removed 
special address ranges failed to appropriately "UPDATE" RFC3484... I'm 
thinking about Teredo, ULA, site-local deprecation and ORCHID here, but I may 
be missing some others.


-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email