Re: 6MAN WG Adoption call : draft-jeong-6man-rdnss-rfc6106-bis

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 12 August 2015 at 02:05, 神明達哉 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> At Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:05:29 +0900,
> Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > I think link-local addresses should be valid for RDNSS options.
>> > They're valid for applications to use (as per RFC4007), and mean that
>> > an on-link resolver service would not be impacted by GUA or ULA
>> > renumbering events.
>>
>> Saying that link-local addresses are valid seems like a reasonable position
>> to take, yes. I'd like us to note it explicitly in the document, though.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on whether to allow link-local
> addresses per se, but if we allow that, I think we should clarify
> which link (or link zone, in RFC4007 terminology) that link-local
> address belongs to.
>  In the case of router advertisements, I guess it
> makes most sense if it's the link over which the RA is sent out and
> received.  It might even look trivial, but I still think it's better
> to clarify that explicitly.  (And, I wouldn't be surprised if someone
> disagrees with this interpretation that makes most sense to me quite
> obviously.  In that case it's even a stronger reason why this should
> better be clarified explicitly).

I don't disagree with clarifying it, however RAs themselves are
link-local scope or local to the link. With exception to these
options' possible values, the other parameter values that RAs provide
are all specific to the link the RA arrived over.

So I think any link-local address received in an RA could only be
interpreted as being on the link over which the RA arrived, as the
context of an RA is the link it was sent over.

Regards,
Mark.


>
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya