IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@googlemail.com> Mon, 07 May 2012 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <maildanrl@googlemail.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 D3B2021F8665 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 gAhxrTtu3MQD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E10021F8663 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so6969960pbc.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 May 2012 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BQj8akyCld+YwaI948NAs835G2ogA2t/A1JfLHjaJvQ=; b=uY81a1lJplTJXuUnwDaeSzSmDTlCz7zA4kxFlAfSo0r/H8gWxxSYeBhFTtRlQQUTSz cnPvOWZQA+DOa1A5krYc3IB4Tcx4B3zIstHAZkqlkg4zabiugae1gmQPPK3Kij0srHh/ N1J10qp6A9uSZKbe6lpn1NwHBTQnqMWiOxYEWMbg8OydfSJZw9jKv0dtJEtZ0/JBwoS5 7DSzQFa2e+F/aDm9suHcohJPAVYCCVsxz7x9DAKhPRuRJfaHWm2VuLNvI2zyl0yhQ0Zr xvixXzRLKLqtDG436ER37KwsWy0Mx9eYZTXReLFzRK9FSuDhRWEaXu0nA9L1b462blRB FmYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.218.72 with SMTP id pe8mr8716970pbc.45.1336411257139; Mon, 07 May 2012 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.52.37 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <113B5F7B-646A-4012-9F10-A994BFE39E8B@virtualized.org>
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>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:20:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAfuxnKZCUMX+8qP_9p_rbs4g193gwwf1TvR5S5yLieb408eQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: There are claims of ambiguity over what is a link-local address
From: Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@googlemail.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>, 6man <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: Mon, 07 May 2012 17:21:03 -0000

Hi,

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>> * FE80::/64 is used for configuring link local addresses;
>> * FE80::/10 is reserved by the IETF.
>> * By default, implementations SHOULD discard packets received from addresses in FE80::/10 outside of FE80::/64
> I personally believe the lesson we've learned from the Class E space is that this sort of reservation/direction is less useful than we might like.

It might be common sense, but could you give me a hint why a
implementation SHOULD not discard those packets? I really tried to
craft a scenario, but none come to my mind so far.

regards,
  Dan

-- 
Dan Luedtke
http://www.danrl.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email