IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] side note RFC 4291 2nd par sec. 2.1 LL on loopback

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 15 April 2019 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB191200EA; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9-4EF1q4evHU; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2757912004B; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3F7gtRV020959; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:42:55 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 90B1A203A18; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79016203265; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.68.125] ([10.8.68.125]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x3F7gs01007578; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:42:54 +0200
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Cc: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, its@ietf.org, "<int-dir@ietf.org>" <int-dir@ietf.org>
References: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com> <bcb6d12d-5b21-1f10-1afe-221321f8e7a6@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd5t77B5ij3ot-F-ucx5+3A7LATC-VTBx3w2_kCDD8fNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35193c42-44ec-7337-56e6-84df6053843e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:42:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqd5t77B5ij3ot-F-ucx5+3A7LATC-VTBx3w2_kCDD8fNA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/OcooTprMVWaOMwlBFyQLnj_w2h8>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] side note RFC 4291 2nd par sec. 2.1 LL on loopback
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:43:04 -0000

Tatuya,

Le 12/04/2019 à 20:36, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 6:59 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>  >    The fe80::/10 word was removed.
> 
> So I've just checked draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-38.  It now
> reads:
> 
>     A subnet is formed by the external 802.11-OCB interfaces of vehicles
>     that are in close range (not by their in-vehicle interfaces).  This
>     subnet MUST use at least the link-local prefix and the interfaces
>     MUST be assigned IPv6 address(es) of type link-local.
> 
> Given that the use of non-0 values in the intermediate 54 bits of
> link-local addresses is now out of scope of this specification, I
> don't see the purpose of the second sentence.
> 
> "the interfaces MUST be assigned IPv6 address(es) of type link-local"
> is redundant, since it's already a part of the very basic
> specification of IPv6 addressing architecture (second paragraph of
> RFC4291 Section 2.1).

That RFC4291 section 2.1 says:
>    All interfaces are required to have at least one Link-Local unicast
>    address (see Section 2.8 for additional required addresses).

Sidenote: I think the loopback interface does not have a link-local 
address.  Probably it is not all interfaces that must have at least one ll(
Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email