Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 09 July 2021 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 7162F3A27C3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OznOFugj9PAM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95853A27BD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BE038ABD; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DFvJraZRGm_y; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7128C38ABC; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3ED89AD; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <967177aa-a740-72b6-e0e5-32fc62d27831@gmail.com>
References: <162545101341.19246.8566193740265797873@ietfa.amsl.com> <95a7dbe5-e0a3-4676-9dcc-005ff53725e0@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMD3iSgo-KMM5Ed8bVnVCu_G3f2kB6zHKoOx2ta=x8QucA@mail.gmail.com> <CANMZLAbmdWHDRBPpHgy_e4_0-WUVW2gjnbXWwu2pF_xi-S0vWQ@mail.gmail.com> <87a6n13y0j.fsf@ungleich.ch> <CA+9kkMBx4F0FGZasdk11ogyCOwQZecAEkO4JbECDr4osySN-4w@mail.gmail.com> <01289d8c-a470-1867-448f-3d616647ba5f@gmail.com> <87bl7flww8.fsf@ungleich.ch> <6771.1625578366@localhost> <m1m19WD-0000EXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <e90a069c-873f-6c93-29f0-b69c9430b66b@gmail.com> <m1m1Qie-0000FLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <26758.1625758150@localhost> <54c7739a-6fb6-7e20-7b9f-3c1a8b6a613b@gmail.com> <11473.1625790920@localhost> <967177aa-a740-72b6-e0e5-32fc62d27831@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 13:00:36 -0400
Message-ID: <7697.1625850036@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/u2w5FlZ-7vcBPOOCwek5KUD_cPU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 17:00:47 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> So, how is working even though you have one non-loopback interface?

Er, I mispoke.  More than one non-loopback interface.

    > I'm not sure I understand that question. As far as I can tell, there is
    > no named interface in Windows that fulfills the function of 'lo' in
    > Linux.  So I'm guessing it's special-cased in the code, but somebody at
    > Microsoft knows the answer.

Really, no loopback?  What is ::1 attached to?

    > Anyway... Wireshark tells me that the ping is going out on the Ethernet
    > interface, which is %7, rather than WiFi, which is %23. So Windows
    > picks Ethernet when given the choice.

I thought it would only work when you had one (active) interface.



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide