IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC6434bis open issue - RFC4191 text

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 07 November 2017 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 EAFA71201F8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Fh-9QoYJ_aeL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 90687132EC4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 15so200047pgc.12 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z0JgW6QxGLFjbZ3h+lTSKWcFceohM+xisaPq4wkLwFM=; b=cQBau214tY9cApy7TP2KiYxiFwCgpA0RyGlTHtdU9GTzR/XJ/JH11YaZIHxU3IUAyh N+05kSZkgFRwD/5hMsIRJe/FuK10E1FoqQE9kjKehlY9zxT+hTVb2q+cSyFPfqus5B2H tzJexaShObTarBxm+WxO9uwoEGnA4kgYugcZgq9tsFNxZ/81jIgsYCTPVX6bTPcFL5gN 5uECVbqq5t1ZxqhMn6dwzFlS0H0PYQcl1lE/0d3bEX1XoXAeetahtyhtPLn2YUnS2ObZ FQzJjemjwWfBfes6L6j8pi6u3OJf9Qr55F84mB1CubfFl2uvk4r6863f50RYPjwf+3m4 u8dg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z0JgW6QxGLFjbZ3h+lTSKWcFceohM+xisaPq4wkLwFM=; b=t0Ur6VRyt+6rDNrS4feuW+IgjD8XkK0xEsll6xE4+pvFVpXejMktw62IgI2fWeWE8G /76dLiCMlHdVcmQhSGDU8qZLH0sLIJNgAvnngB503j8lNDSz5+EfX+hOcsf29ffB9efY kOjW7q8/GI0tc5W2mCMvVCDjzG+xHvJIjtRH+z2NUvDm4Xi672FihftRlRB8nN6RdYLB 6G/97FdY+t2Ho6bh8JkhfDr4uM7jgTaPL1xqatsXw+CUq13mBUdR0SwuvcNTqKtgL85V boD98LoW5R2G5Agis3cCxpLQ/RZ3ZcYkWmpk4vLlGMFOqH3/mW9Q+jrR/TAprI/duEVr kX2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUy4viGh5Vka5W/cAYZlhlfeorOe6xb/tU8YXxKHC/Qb+3vXrZQ kw3U582GBWK15zRHKvaZK2ZeQA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T52lGqECBJHeGwwSTSiYhimX4fNxOxxkLVIxbupwV/xOVAEFogwTmBPeRmXyRL6Xx2qzB29Q==
X-Received: by 10.84.133.165 with SMTP id f34mr18918065plf.268.1510082279863; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:17:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:3d21:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e84sm4718291pfd.1.2017.11.07.11.17.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: RFC6434bis open issue - RFC4191 text
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4FF47B5B-247F-4361-838C-2E50BD642ED3@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <27940d72-293a-0486-ab23-ae816566adb2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:17:59 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4FF47B5B-247F-4361-838C-2E50BD642ED3@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bpjumFlJO8k5D70CG9AIx0QVdbM>
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: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:18:03 -0000

On 08/11/2017 00:48, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> TimW and I would like to get some list feedback on some open issues in the draft in advance of the Singapore WG session.
> 
> The first topic is whether the text on RFC4191 is now acceptable, i.e.:
> 
> — snip —
> 
> 5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
> 
>    "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
>    provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
>    each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
>    via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
>    connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
>    the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
>    order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
>    and SHOULD implement Type C host role.
> 
> — snip —
> 
> Any comments welcomed.  
> 
> (As a nit, I can see we should add "the" before "Type C”.)

I already mentioned this in my comments a couple of weeks ago,
and Tim W replied:

>> I suggest that the last phrase should clarify that "Type C" is defined
>> in RFC 4191, because as written that is not obvious.
>>
> We can clarify that in the next revision.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email