Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses

Le 07/01/2021 à 19:24, Ron Bonica a écrit :
> Jinmei,
> 
> Thanks! I think that the following text from RFC 4007 covers the
> issue:
> 
> "   A node that receives a packet addressed to itself and containing
> a Routing Header with more than zero Segments Left (Section 4.4 of
> [3]) first checks the scope of the next address in the Routing
> Header.  If the scope of the next address is smaller than the scope
> of the original destination address, the node MUST discard the
> packet. "

Are scopes bigger one than another?

In multicast that may be true, but in unicast it's hard to say a scope
might be smaller or bigger than another scope.

In unicast, there might be only two scopes: LL and global.  It might be
that there is no inclusion from one into another, or it might be that a
size comparison might not be possible.

Intuitively, one might consider that LL scope to be smaller than Global
scope, because of the reach.  But knowing that each iface must have an
LL address whereas not all ifaces have a Global address it might be that
the number of assigned LL addresses is larger than the number of
assigned Global addresses at one point in time.  In that sense, it might
be that the set of LL addresses is much larger (bigger) than the set of
Global addresses.

That is one reason that is hard to implement the paragraph cited in the
beginning of this message.

There is no number in an address that says 'scope', and that could be
used to compare two addresses, and to decide that one address is of a
larger scope than another.

Alex

> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Sent:
> Thursday, January 7, 2021 1:09 PM To: Ron Bonica
> <rbonica@juniper.net> Cc: 6man@ietf.org Subject: Re: Forwarding
> Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> 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 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 