A note you may find interesting in this context is:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5375.txt
5375 IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations. G. Van de Velde,
C. Popoviciu, T. Chown, O. Bonness, C. Hahn. December 2008.
(Format:
TXT=83809 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
You already reviewed RFC 3627, which is good.
On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Miya Kohno wrote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
