Francis, On Mon 26 Sep '05 at 13:57 Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > > => RFC 3849 is different because it wants to limit the scope of the > > doc prefix. In KHI we simply don't want to see the prefix in IP headers > > so the requirement (don't route) is stronger than filtering. > > RFC 3849 seems to be very similar imho, as it suggests using packet > filters to stop forwarding, as well as filtering the prefix from routing. > > => RFC 3849 implements a limit (so your term stop is not fully correct), > KHI implements an interdiction.
,----[RFC 3849]---- | This assignment implies that IPv6 network operators should add this | address prefix to the list of non-routeable IPv6 address space, and | if packet filters are deployed, then this address prefix should be | added to packet filters. `---- Packet filters are an interdiction; a deny typically always sends an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable, Admin Prohibited. > > You shouldn't see the documentation prefix in the src or dst of any packet. > > => this is not true at all: inside a documentation site the documentation > prefix is virtually routed. BTW it is not a /64 but a /32. I should have been clearer, inside the DFZ you shouldn't see the documentation prefix. You also probably shouldn't see it within a site, but that's why the RFC recommends adding it to filters, to stop it leaking out. > Placing a requirement directly on routers is a lot tougher than placing a > requirement on the operators. To support the current wording, every router > vendor would have to update their code, > > => no, this needs only configuration. I'm glad that was the intended behaviour. A. -- Alun Evans IOS Software Engineer, cisco Systems. http://www.cisco.com/go/ipv6/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
