Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)

神明達哉 <> Thu, 22 October 2020 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10193A09FD for <>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y0dVKvzrFc0G for <>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE27D3A0A68 for <>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j15so99208uaa.8 for <>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YBCjVOQDKFHDlmWMhVJPik/1p/3Av8LQ7YlI+mVZ6+c=; b=RqX2+TmBJEOvi/R2lhisXi8u+H9e8wOohabqLPmQFwpi5332uRH3dSd6sxHtdiqvmY afCa/ner22vNQOfWgrK051BuSKRXXzr6t+kJwRNPcEuX1YM7XYkLkyNctzHiRRMXBDwH ErJVhhOM15WxR9faPxZR/E7/bPRctfN/LSzB+0YGKMqjaeBV13TUIzPgwgCtaRbTBTHZ HNeRGycT7NvYyk1QyxqcnQIrivDFYr35SdCSzDqCTiFmHPFRfo+inf2/HFprxGZ/miMK itpONyiZ4obeKN2TtOQWM9qdtmvxuDMWuVJTiuACUBXU2dWk4RUbEGfs34fEnOu73c9B hjDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530k+/ivGf8HsZCmM0ZVwmMlM9LK/npYAmf54XpWGMcPMVuRDxqA 18ufnlTKrS6NWBH6GzPdu9gSm3OQ1gDwqCKXok4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOwsyT+ZGvPWwFGSj+oKngMSlDGVNOjFGWDC+DnE62WGIZfMzp9Cggyr5KBF+tRLc86gmJWhcXZNn1VLIZQ2Q=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:b1a:: with SMTP id b26mr289426uak.123.1603342736327; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (6153)
To: Fernando Gont <>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <>, RFC Errata System <>, Brian Haberman <>, IPv6 IPv6 List <>,,,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:59:00 -0000

At Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:09:46 -0300,
Fernando Gont <> wrote:

> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:04 PM RFC Errata System
> > <> wrote:
> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4443,
> >> "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification".
> >
> > Folks, we're all busy and that's fine, but it's been early May, any follow-ups?
> FWIW, it would seem to me this erratum should be approved.
> One might argue that the "It should say" part could be simplified by
> simply s/scope/scope zone/, since RFC4443 need not rehash what's in
> RFC4007. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference, and doesn't
> affect the correctness of the erratum you've submitted.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether to approve the erratum, but
if we do so, I'd keep this part of the original text: "This condition
can occur only when the scope of the source address is smaller than
the scope of the destination address (e.g., when a packet has a
link-local source address and a global-scope destination address)".
Technically, this text is not necessary to implement this ICMPv6 code
correctly, but it will still help the understanding.

Also, if the motivation of this erratum is this:

  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

then I'm skeptical about how much the new text helps improve the
situation.  The misunderstanding that "a packet with link-local src or
dst address can never be forwarded by a router in any way" (it can, as
long as the packet would still stay in the same link zone) is quite
common, but I suspect the current text of RFC4443 Section 3.1 is not
the main source of this misunderstanding.  Even if so, I suspect the
new text will help correct the misunderstanding very much; if
correcting the well-known confusion is the purpose of the erratum, I'd
rather make the erratum text more explicit about that point.

JINMEI, Tatuya