RE: Doubt in RFC 3484

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Tue, 26 June 2012 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.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 694B811E80D6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7bXBf8492BP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF7511E80BC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail87-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.231) by CH1EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.43.70.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:46 +0000
Received: from mail87-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail87-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4F616032D; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -1
X-BigFish: VS-1(zzc89bh1432Izz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h93fhd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail87-ch1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail87-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail87-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1340751104902078_28293; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.227]) by mail87-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C1D400185; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by CH1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.43.70.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:44 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.68) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.5; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:53:25 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.28]) by TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.68]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:25 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: jiten shah <jitenshah18@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Doubt in RFC 3484
Thread-Topic: Doubt in RFC 3484
Thread-Index: AQHNQiw8bXrypq7190eQkQO1LF5B6ZcNV0SggAAAG1A=
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:53:24 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678BAF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <CACX_QMADGZRGuwrQgqCozDwCCVFr6ZktcYvhu6Gun1XocZxtDw@mail.gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678B87@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678B87@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Jun 2012 22:53:30 -0000

jiten shah writes: 
> Consider a topology where two routers are connected back to back. these link
> have only a IPv6 link local address. I want to ping a global address on the
> other switch through this link. RFC 3484 says that for  selecting the source
> address :
> 
>  It is RECOMMENDED that the candidate source addresses be the set of
>    unicast addresses assigned to the interface that will be used to send
>    to the destination.  (The "outgoing" interface.)  On routers, the
>    candidate set MAY include unicast addresses assigned to any interface
>    that forwards packets, subject to the restrictions described below.
[...]
> 
> So since in my topology the outgoing link does not have a global v6 address I
> need to use address on other interface but I do not understand the above
> condition. Can someone simplify it on what basis we can use the addresses
> on the other interface ? Can some one please explain me

Since the requirements language is RECOMMENDED and MAY, you're free
to use addresses on other interfaces any time you have a good reason to do so.
Hence it's ok to use a global address from another interface as the source 
address of a ping in the case you describe.

-Dave