Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 07 May 2012 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 A683E21F849D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 13:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JxwHpfgK-+lS for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 13:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs-w.tc.umn.edu (vs-w.tc.umn.edu [134.84.135.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDD621F8496 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 13:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f171.google.com (mail-yx0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) by vs-w.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 15:48:28 -0500 (CDT)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-yx0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171] #+LO+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by mail-yx0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q11so6662993yen.16 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 May 2012 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version :to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=bOR8cmAeXIIoWIHRkQTnwYrDY7Cgw7dTRBcGCG+Lq1g=; b=Fh9CmRNLqIdO3BvLEjuCm6yyTUCPjKYbOtM0bVndlxqd3hMLCf7ApF4umc7MIQjZlV qmWw3UtdtQrnD/Vz5Zo9MgctJzihE9955KHLPD9TR0SiXVagyG4xVVdGqE8mmoBUmm9p aVnZkZUi99nEDivtdRqyDvRM/+I/OvpZNibdbaunFCaN7bHf+locXNS+p7eBqyYHH9IE kMWB62GgyD0h+VImqJpI3YG3WE5fcNIJcZ7udVd+B3No1MKKLrnkBKc7IPqX61fwvab9 oP+Phmmxs6630vyN4sqWzSvsZ1ljfvcQNFeKpFf1PFKE0r2krjI/R3pcn3CEk5GB3QoA +QEA==
Received: by 10.42.141.72 with SMTP id n8mr421078icu.47.1336423707916; Mon, 07 May 2012 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x-128-101-233-224.uofm-secure.wireless.umn.edu ([2607:ea00:104:2000:223:6cff:fe94:288c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm2133igq.0.2012.05.07.13.48.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 07 May 2012 13:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FA83518.4080201@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 15:48:24 -0500
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address
References: <20120506235919.66E7B206E4F1@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4FA77236.30109@gmail.com> <4FA77EC7.6000406@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5B6560@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA0BC26723@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <113B5F7B-646A-4012-9F10-A994BFE39E8B@virtualized.org> <CAAfuxnKZCUMX+8qP_9p_rbs4g193gwwf1TvR5S5yLieb408eQw@mail.gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B5B70D9@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CAAfuxn+y9M60uRGNtWks8NueGa9nZSr10cK0GYKRUwfeX6Zqyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAfuxn+y9M60uRGNtWks8NueGa9nZSr10cK0GYKRUwfeX6Zqyg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8hSi75O28FnGVo1l4AnMkyfET0PH9kRCbYZDsCwwczG2e/KbTFHMP70kSG3+XjjiqO/YM
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
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: Mon, 07 May 2012 20:48:39 -0000

On 5/7/12 12:40 CDT, Dan Luedtke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Dave Thaler<dthaler@microsoft.com>  wrote:
>> MUST NOT would seem to match the intent of the original
>> RFCs which say:
>> "   Routers must not forward any packets with link-local source or
>>    destination addresses to other links."
> Got it now, thanks :) Yes, weakening the requirements seems to be not
> useful in this case.
> I prefer MUST NOT, too.

"MUST NOT be forwarded" is not the same thing as "MUST be dropped".

Everything in the Link-Local scope "MUST NOT be forwarded" to another 
interface.  Everything in FF80::/10 is in the Link-Local Scope. 
FF80::/64 is currently used for Link-Local addressing, the reset of 
FF80::/10 is reserved.  I believe the comment was that saying that the 
reserved space should be dropped is incorrect and will frustrate future 
use of the reserved portion of FF80::/10 if there is any.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================