Hi Brian,
The current test specification is inline with your statements below.
We essentially have the device learn a site-local prefix and make sure it
treats it as a run of the mill global address.
Regards,
Tim
On Nov 4, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> On 11/4/10 6:08 AM, V, Raman K (MCBS-UPEL) wrote:
>> Hi All, This is a question about the correct interpretation of
>> RFC3879. Conformance to this RFC is a requisite for USGv6/DISRv3
>> certification, so I am trying to figure out the right thing to do
>> inside our IPv6 stack.
>>
>> A portion of Section 4 of this RFC (the crux, really) is reproduced
>> below:
>>
>> This document formally deprecates the IPv6 site-local unicast prefix
>> defined in [RFC3513], i.e., 1111111011 binary or FEC0::/10. The
>> special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new
>> implementations. The prefix MUST NOT be reassigned for other use
>> except by a future IETF standards action. Future versions of the
>> addressing architecture [RFC3513] will include this information.
>>
>
> When I maintained an IPv6 stack, I simply removed any of the special
> handling necessary for FEC0::/10 and treated it as any other global IPv6
> prefix. For example, I removed all of the scope zone checks that are
> defined for scoped addresses (RFC 4007).
>
>> It seems to clearly say that an IPv6 stack must no longer support
>> site-local addresses, to be able to conform this RFC. So, would I be
>> right in assuming that our stack should simply drop the support for
>> site-local addresses? Or should I put more emphasis on the words "new
>> implementations" and say that mine isn't a new implementations (we
>> have had our IPv6 stack in the market for a while), so we should
>> continue to support site-local addresses?
>
> I would suggest dropping support.
>
>>
>> We are going for a USGv6 certification and knowing the right thing to
>> do from this expert community would very helpful. Any thoughts in
>> this area or any pointers in this regard would be greatly
>> appreciated.
>
> If you are aiming for USGv6 certification and knowing how long equipment
> is kept in such environments, I would lean towards playing it safe and
> removing any special handling for the site-local prefix. Otherwise, you
> run the risk that someone may put your product in a network where, years
> later, they start using FEC0:: in a non-site-local context.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
