Re: [v6ops] IPv6 LL-only as WG document - feedback requested

["Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark ZZZ Smith [mailto:[e-mail]]
[...]
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
[...]
> >
> > Carlos,
> >
> > On 14/08/2012 22:08, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> >>  Michael, Brian,
> >>
> >>  Should "The Suggested Approach"
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-behringer-lla-only-01#section-2.1
> > also include some prescriptiveness or specific recommendation
> > regarding the use of RFC 5837, instead of including that solution to
> > interface identification as a "Caveats and Possible Workarounds" only?
> >
> > I have no strong opinion on this. Just indicating the existence of
> > 5837 seems OK, though.

Two comments: 
- the wording "suggested approach" is a left-over from the times when we were targeting BCP. Now as informational we'll remove the "suggested". 
- the intention of the doc is to give guidance to a network operator on whether link local is a good idea in his environment or not. Since the target is the network operator, I don’t think we should recommend the use - the operator can't do anything about it. So my suggestion would be to leave it where it is. 

Unless we want to widen the scope? (Not my preferred approach though - it's nice to have a clear scope)

> > Looking at the current text, it says that the loopback GUA MUST be
> > used for all
> > ICMPv6 messages, which is good, but it also says "ICMP error message
> > can also be sourced from the global scope loopback address."
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to be even more general, and just say ICMPv6
> messages must come from addresses with a scope greater than link local?
> Restricting to GUAs suggests the idea in this draft can only be used when
> GUAs are available, yet I'd think it could also be useful in a private, non-
> Internet connected network too.

Good point. I'll change that. 

Thanks for the feedback! 
Michael

[...]