Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 07 January 2021 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
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 837A33A0927 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 YF3JtQ97zsSC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com [209.85.217.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5ED83A0812 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id j140so4109345vsd.4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 10:08:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2jlTm4MwBrV04ZY8I2F0lADd9pxUgJMGCI1awHRQH+E=; b=Mf3TLykJC1c5ARCS/uqqOszV4wR9dg+oQpSF1DyMKj5O1DsotaQM/g/mAnZ0gD/Ktz D22s/iLXRUAEIlE+dr1J7olOrjWatEQruvh15r/g88DnPp9+6L4wno59gcLx77IyaaV3 nvpQYAwVEaCNo5Kv2SB6wSkKeDqkMoLtDCBJGPaxSYnv0bkVLynSwOYrzlSoT3SkDM9e ECov5CulO396Ly7fKtn/KjCI3SUhl6/tHq/YQbaQu0fDqf+l1tM8+6TOEjK3wD1TRjc6 RrTREEU710yI187yxHpfTvY8MmDl6Xv0QY0s9lonBdCwPnp5QO1rSfVU5UmhrTkeMsLt Jc1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532frm4o6H4NSn+pobPVE7xot5XIpL9uE1BEILYOolWk+4PrZYyK kKD6BTzaAQ95wCDWxvGj1o+a0fTExgKfxwe+phuqezWK+Bki5g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyDzTAOc7drJpbb2VyrrSL0zw8jj0tgvEaVR2Qqauzc4zssjj/qHJs8AnpKQINqWD24dCUBN4OqsT1gyhy3Sbs=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ff03:: with SMTP id v3mr8305845vsp.48.1610042928875; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 10:08:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR05MB6348A18046C5DDC7CF2AED76AEAF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348A18046C5DDC7CF2AED76AEAF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 10:08:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqdYv1uO7fZjG8hvD7Zf=f_TL6zH0bcgxxzxHG1ZkA8XGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/X8D4DqPUV2kdrCDXuTdKDHldcGk>
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 18:08:51 -0000

At Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:53:51 +0000,
Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> According to RFC 4291, "routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or destination addresses to other links".
>
> I interpret this statement to include packets that contain routing headers. For example, it forbids an SRv6 packet whose final segment has a locator that begins with FE80.
>
> Does everyone share this interpretation? If so, do RFC 4291 or RFC 8200 make this sufficiently clear?

I believe Section 9 of RFC4007 answers the question.  In short, you're
*basically* correct.

I said *basically* because there can be an exception that makes it
legitimate, but I suspect that usually doesn't apply in practice.

--
jinmei