effect of deprecated site local addresses on router renumbering (rfc 2894)

Suraj <surajs@huawei.com> Wed, 05 October 2005 04:29 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EN0uI-0007U3-Kx; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:29:30 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EN0uG-0007Ty-QC for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:29:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27289 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.55] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EN134-0005nw-77 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:38:35 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0INV009RADSZ8M@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:29:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxml01-in ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0INV00E75DSZ19@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:29:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huaweimdtsdqe4 ([10.110.102.100]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0INV00GUCE52BM@szxml01-in.huawei.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:36:39 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:26:01 +0800
From: Suraj <surajs@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <20051002040013.BEDF947B@cyteen.hactrn.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Message-id: <000001c5c964$e461e2a0$64666e0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: effect of deprecated site local addresses on router renumbering (rfc 2894)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Hi All,

RFC 2894 ' Router Renumbering for IPv6'describes the Renumbering of
Prefixes using RR commands to multicast addresses. (Site local OR Link
local).

Since the site local addresses are now deprecated (RFC 3879), we can
assume that RR is now supported only for Link local addresses (unicast
and multicast).

What is the relevance of the 'S'(site specific) flag now in the command
message. Should the 'S' flag be evaluated even if the scope of
destination address is Link local (unicast or multicast)?

Since RFC 2894 says that the 'S' flag should be ignored unless the
router treats interfaces as belonging to different "sites", in this case
should the RR command messages be limited only to the interfaces on that
link OR to all interfaces on the router?

Thanks and Regards,
Suraj.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------