Re: [OPSEC] [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-v6

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 04/18/2017 02:31 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, you are missing something. RFC4443 specifies what behaviour
>>> should be if a router receives a packet on a point to point link that
>>> would end up being forwarded back out the same link. The specified
>>> behaviour is drop and send destination unreachable. That solves the
>>> problem for any packet obviously. And any prefix length assigned to
>>> the link.
>>
>> How could RFC4443 possibly address this for all packets without formally
>> updating RFC2460?
>>
>> P.S.: For a specification pov, this shouldn't be buried in RFC4443, and,
>> as noted, no matter where this "patch" is specified, such doc should
>> certainly update RFC2460.
> 
> You will probably save everyone a lot of energy if you just admit you had missed it, and moved on.

Huh?

I obviously missed it. But this should still be in RFC2460 (or
rfc2460bis, FWIW). RFC4443 is supposed to specify ICMPv6, nt forwarding
for IPv6 packets.

Having important requirements spread into a number of documents where
they don't belong doesn't help, and in the long run takes more energy
(and creates more problems) than spending the energy in doing what is right.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492