Re: Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC 6890

MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp> Fri, 31 January 2014 01:24 UTC

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:24:19 +0900
From: MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp>
To: simon.perreault@viagenie.ca, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC 6890
In-Reply-To: <52EAABE5.3060009@gmail.com>
References: <52EA5FDC.3090309@viagenie.ca> <52EAABE5.3060009@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20140131102419.46F9.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Precedence: list

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much.  I didn't notice fc00::/7.
Based on your comments I wrote a modified version as below.

If anyone have any similar comments, I'd like to report that
as an errata.  Thanks in advance.

                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Attribute            | Value          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Address Block        | 2001::/32      |
                    | Name                 | TEREDO         |
                    | RFC                  | [RFC4380]      |
                    | Allocation Date      | January 2006   |
                    | Termination Date     | N/A            |
                    | Source               | True           |
                    | Destination          | True           |
                    | Forwardable          | True           |
                    | Global               | N/A [RFC4380]  |
                    | Reserved-by-Protocol | False          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                             Table 23: TEREDO

                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Attribute            | Value          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Address Block        | fc00::/7       |
                    | Name                 | Unique-Local   |
                    | RFC                  | [RFC4193]      |
                    | Allocation Date      | October 2005   |
                    | Termination Date     | N/A            |
                    | Source               | True           |
                    | Destination          | True           |
                    | Forwardable          | True           |
                    | Global               | N/A [RFC4193]  |
                    | Reserved-by-Protocol | False          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                          Table 28: Unique-Local


Kind Regards,
Masataka MAWATARI


* On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:45:41 +1300
* Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/01/2014 03:21, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > Le 2014-01-30 08:21, MAWATARI Masataka a ecrit :
> >> The following table on the RFC 6890 says that global of 2001::/32
> >> is false.
> > 
> > Looks to me like an errata in RFC 6890...
> 
> Agreed. The entry for 2002::/16 is better and that approach
> would work for 2001::/32, I think: N/A, see [RFC4380].
> 
> Both of these prefixes are routed as if they are global
> but they are special, so neither True nor False is correct.
> 
> There is the same bug for fc00::/7, which is explicitly
> of global scope but special: N/A see [RFC4193].
> 
>    Brian

Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC 6890 MAWATARI Masataka
Re: Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC… Simon Perreault
Re: Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC… Brian E Carpenter
Re: Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC… MAWATARI Masataka