[IPv6]Re: Reclaiming fec0::/10 (I-D Action: draft-templin-6man-mla-01.txt)

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 3:36 PM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> David, regarding your question #1, the answer is I don’t know. Is there a
> specific section in a specific reference I should look at to understand
> this question better?
>

I'd look at, RFC3986 Section
3.2.2, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis, draft-schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp,
and draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/ for the details.

Hope that helps.


> As to question #2, it would probably be best to stick with the term “MANET
> router”; I think of a “MANET host” as a node that does not participate in
> the MANET routing protocol and is dependent on another node acting as a
> MANET router for its connectivity. But to your question, I think yes a
> MANET router can be part of more than one MANET zone, for example where
> some interfaces connect to MANET A and other interfaces connect to MANET B
> and the two zones do not mix. This would lead to a drawing that looks a lot
> like Figure 2 of RFC4007. At least, that is what I think it should look
> like – what do you think?
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2024 12:46 PM
> *To:* Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [IPv6]Re: Reclaiming fec0::/10 (I-D Action:
> draft-templin-6man-mla-01.txt)
>
>
>
> Fred,
>
>
>
> I still have concerns about whether a new scope is a good idea. But for
> now, I'll ask a couple of questions;
>
>    1. Will there be any need to use MANET local addresses URIs as IPv6
>    literals? Currently, there is no way to put a Zone ID in an IPv6 Literal
>    URI.
>    2. Can a MANET host be part of more than one MANET zone? From the
>    RFC4007 perspective, Zones other than Global have multiple instances.
>
> Another possible issue with reusing fec0::/10 in RFC6724 is that it
> already has its own label but has a precedence of 1, the lowest. Does that
> work for your intended use? Yes, it can be changed, but it will take years
> to make happen.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:52 Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, a new draft version is now posted (-03) that addresses comments raised
> on the list;
>
> importantly, RFC5889 and RFC4007 are now also cited:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-mla/
>
>
>
> Please (re-)review and post further comments to the list.
>
>
>
> Thank you - Fred
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================