[IPv6]Re: Reclaiming fec0::/10 (I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-01.txt)

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for these references. I don’t pretend to know the dynamics between these different drafts
that appear to address similar concerns, but to your original question I think an MLA can appear
in a literal in the name service for a local MANET routing region (e.g., served by mDNS) but must
not appear in the global DNS. This is from my limited understanding of this problem space.

Fred

From: David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 11:16 AM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [IPv6]Re: Reclaiming fec0::/10 (I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-01.txt)

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 3:36 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
David, regarding your question #1, the answer is I don’t know. Is there a specific section in a specific reference I should look at to understand this question better?

I'd look at, RFC3986 Section 3.2.2, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis, draft-schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp, and draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/ for the details.

Hope that helps.

As to question #2, it would probably be best to stick with the term “MANET router”; I think of a “MANET host” as a node that does not participate in the MANET routing protocol and is dependent on another node acting as a MANET router for its connectivity. But to your question, I think yes a MANET router can be part of more than one MANET zone, for example where some interfaces connect to MANET A and other interfaces connect to MANET B and the two zones do not mix. This would lead to a drawing that looks a lot like Figure 2 of RFC4007. At least, that is what I think it should look like – what do you think?

Thank you - Fred

From: David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 12:46 PM
To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: IPv6 List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [IPv6]Re: Reclaiming fec0::/10 (I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-01.txt)

Fred,

I still have concerns about whether a new scope is a good idea. But for now, I'll ask a couple of questions;

  1.  Will there be any need to use MANET local addresses URIs as IPv6 literals? Currently, there is no way to put a Zone ID in an IPv6 Literal URI.
  2.  Can a MANET host be part of more than one MANET zone? From the RFC4007 perspective, Zones other than Global have multiple instances.
Another possible issue with reusing fec0::/10 in RFC6724 is that it already has its own label but has a precedence of 1, the lowest. Does that work for your intended use? Yes, it can be changed, but it will take years to make happen.

Thanks


On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:52 Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi, a new draft version is now posted (-03) that addresses comments raised on the list;

importantly, RFC5889 and RFC4007 are now also cited:



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-mla/



Please (re-)review and post further comments to the list.



Thank you - Fred
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests:
--------------------------------------------------------------------


--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================