Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 22 February 2021 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 0F8983A2088 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 4YSou3vvfwsN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6B8D3A2086 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2121:2c7:34e7:4996:9073:7806:2546] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:2c7:34e7:4996:9073:7806:2546]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38EA74E11D75; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:41:38 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-847E8499-4A3A-4B34-8354-3B55A52F440E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 22:41:35 +0100
Message-Id: <C7031BE1-0AE5-46FD-813C-EDAE1105AAEB@employees.org>
References: <CALZ3u+Y4wcJKq3y--9ZKp2XHNOO7tA1kE-X3HuKjGco9gwxKng@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Daniel Ginsburg <dginsburg@gmail.com>, IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <CALZ3u+Y4wcJKq3y--9ZKp2XHNOO7tA1kE-X3HuKjGco9gwxKng@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SF4nZxp1ISeiORgAyhWIT8keWX4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 21:41:41 -0000

Töma,

It’s perfectly valid to send a packet with a link-local source and a global destination address, as long as the interface with the global address is on the same link.

So, what’s the ambiguity?

Cheers 
Ole

> On 22 Feb 2021, at 22:22, Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Peace,
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 11:50 PM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> Töma,
>> 
>> I have read your errata. 
>> I am not  sure I understand the ambiguity. Could you try to explain it in more detail
> 
> 
> Consider a case when the source IP is link-local and the destination is global, yet the routing happens in the same VLAN.
> 
> Per RFC 4007, the packet should be transmitted; however, RFC 4443 allows for an ambiguity which is already causing vendors to reject packets in this case.
> 
> --
> Töma