[mpls] Re: Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-08: (with DISCUSS)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gunter,
thank you for the review and your comment. Please find my notes below
tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 5:33 AM Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-08: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd-08
>
> # I support the DISCUSS from Eric regarding usage of ::1/128 loopback
> address
>
GIM>> I will work on addressing Eric's concerns.

>
> # For the remainder i have a single DISCUSS that will be easy to resolve
>
> #DISCUSS
> #=======
>
> In the abstract it is mentioned that the IPv4 mapped IPv6 addresses are
> discouraged, but i did not find in the document explicitly explained why
> it is
> discouraged? Can this be outlined in a short explicit paragraph?
>
GIM>> Resulting from the the discussion with Mahesh, I updated Introduction
with the following text (uploaded -09 version earlier today):
   Historically, an IPv6-mapped IPv4 loopback range
   address::ffff:127.0.0.1/128 was mandated, although functionally, an
   IPv6 address from that range is not analogous to its IPv4
   counterpart.  This draft starts the transition to using the proper
   IPv6 loopback address as the IPv6 destination address in the IP/UDP
   encapsulation of active OAM over the MPLS data plane.  Thus, this
   document also updates [RFC8562] and recommends the use of an IPv6
   loopback address (::1/128) while acknowledging that an address from
   ::ffff:127.0.0.1/128 range might be used by existing implementations,
   discourages the use of the IPv6-mapped IPv4 loopback range address.

Woudl it address your concern?

>
> G/
>
>
>
>
>
>