Thank you, Tatsuya, for your thorough review. I think both of your points are apposite. We'll reflect them into the -01 version.
Thanks again, Miya > -----Original Message----- > From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [mailto:jin...@isc.org] > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:37 PM > To: Miya Kohno; Becca Nitzan; ra...@psg.com; m...@iij.ad.jp > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: comments on draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt > > (resending as I seem to have submitted the original one from the wrong > address) > > I've read this draft. I don't have a strong opinion on the > proposal per se, but have a couple of minor comments: > > 1. In Section 4, the draft says: > > However, Subnet-router > anycast address has not been implemented and in practice, this has > not been a problem. > > I'm afraid "has not been implemented" is too strong. In > fact, we have "implemented" it in the KAME/BSD IPv6 stack in > that we implemented special restrictions (at that time) on > anycast addresses and had experimentally assigned > subnet-router anycast addresses on PC-based > IPv6 routers. In general, it's difficult to declare > something hasn't been implemented because it eliminates any > minor implementation activity, which is almost impossible to prove. > > I have no objection to the conclusion itself (i.e. not a problem in > practice) and would rephrase it to something like this: > > However, Subnet-router anycast addresses have not been (widely) > deployed, and this has not been a problem in practice. > > 2. In section 5, it states: > > 1) A rule described in ICMPv6 [RFC4443] indicates that a > Destination Unreachable (Code 3) message should be sent by a > router rather than forwarding packets back onto > point-to-point > links from which they were received if their destination > address belongs to the link itself. > > This sentence is clear, but IMO is not perfectly accurate > because an address doesn't belong t(or isn't assigned to) a > *link*; it's assigned to an interface. The corresponding > text of RFC4443 reads: > > One specific case in which a Destination Unreachable > message is sent > with a code 3 is in response to a packet received by a > router from a > point-to-point link, destined to an address within a > subnet assigned > to that same link (other than one of the receiving router's own > addresses). > > where it's a *subnet* that is assigned to the link. So, to > be very accurate, I'd propose to revise the text (e.g.) as follows: > > 1) A rule described in ICMPv6 [RFC4443] indicates [...] > if their destination address matches a subnet that belongs to > the link itself. > > --- > JINMEI, Tatuya > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
