[rrg] [ILNP] Option type for Nonce v6
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sun, 08 July 2012 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BED21F84FB for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.684
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.684 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.372, BAYES_05=-1.11, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DrIKeknoOkSb for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B979A21F84E6 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 6E0FA3B3F8; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 14:03:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 165711906A5; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:58:05 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:58:05 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20120708135805.GA12216@sources.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.5
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: [rrg] [ILNP] Option type for Nonce v6
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:02:52 -0000
I have a small doubt when rereading draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-05. It says "if an end system receives an IPv6 packet containing this option [Nonce Destination Option], but does not recognise this option, the end system MUST discard the packet and [...] send an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem". But a legacy system won't of course follow the new RFC. The normal mechanism to have this behaviour, with legacy IPv6 systems, is to encode it in the option type (RFC 2460, sections 4.2 and 4.5). But draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6-05 does not seem to mention it and just says "IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value". Shouldn't it be modified to say "IANA is requested to assign a new IPv6 Destination Option Type value starting with 10"? [This is important because nice coexistence between ILNP-enabled systems and legacy ones depend on receiving an explicit notification that the responder does not support ILNP.]
- [rrg] [ILNP] Option type for Nonce v6 Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [rrg] [ILNP] Option type for Nonce v6 RJ Atkinson