IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-links-00.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sat, 10 March 2018 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C8F1274D2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:32:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Tzbldz9ReC3V for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFA291270FC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (96.51-175-103.customer.lyse.net [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB8DB2D5064; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:32:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FFA2023DB4B5; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:32:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <F88BA0B6-3174-4DBC-B674-6DCF521CF946@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_810ECC1E-F47A-4133-AA32-9EA3414507D8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:32:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <df5935b4-8c6a-e620-4ed4-dae793a50ee1@gmail.com>
Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <152027294685.14511.12101390842726850001@ietfa.amsl.com> <df5935b4-8c6a-e620-4ed4-dae793a50ee1@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6QobnEKe4-aDH0VWpY6TN0QGbj8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-links-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:32:38 -0000

> I think you should refer to RFC7608, "IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, which makes it clear that *any* prefix length is valid.
> 
> Also split the references into Informational and Normative. For example RFC3627 is definitely not normative!
> 
> About ULAs:
> 1) link-locals in ICMP message are equally bad and are sometimes seen in the wild. That should be mentioned, I think.
> 2) isn't it OK to use a ULA (or link-local) on a particular link if and only if you program the router to use a GUA in ICMP messages? In other words the rule is not: don't use ULA or link-local. It's actually: do give the router at least one GUA and use that GUA in ICMP messages.

That's not the rule. The rule is stated in RFC4443, section 2.2.

Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email