IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

I made the mistake of allowing my arm to be twisted into reviewing draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt last week, and was sad to find what appears to be an ambiguity in some of text that deals with subnet-scope multicast. Given that this document was already before the IESG at the time I found

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Rob, The subnet-scope is delineated in the same manner as the scopes 6,7,8,9... That is, a router maintains a scope zone id per interface. So, if I have a router that has interfaces 1,2,3, & 4 and the admin assigns a subnet-local scope zone id of 100 to interfaces 2 and 4, then 2 and 4 are i

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:35:37 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: > > The subnet-scope is delineated in the same manner as the scopes > 6,7,8,9... That is, a router maintains a scope zone id per interface. > So, if I have a router that has interfaces 1,2,3, & 4 and the admin > assigns a subnet-loca

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700, Steve Deering wrote: > > In a response to that message, Rob asked me if I had forgotten about > unnumbered point-to-point links. I answered as follows: > > >Yes, I did forget about them, but I think it's obvious how to handle them: > >they are not part of a su

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At 6:07 PM -0400 10/2/02, Rob Austein wrote: >The key phrase in your explanation is "the admin assigns". The >addr-arch doc says "admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must >be administratively configured". So which is it? You omitted the full description: admin-local sco

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:08:34 -0700, Steve Deering wrote: > > At 6:07 PM -0400 10/2/02, Rob Austein wrote: > >The key phrase in your explanation is "the admin assigns". The > >addr-arch doc says "admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must > >be administratively configured". So which is it?

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Rob Austein wrote: > > At Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:35:37 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote: > > > > The subnet-scope is delineated in the same manner as the scopes > > 6,7,8,9... That is, a router maintains a scope zone id per interface. > > So, if I have a router that has interfaces 1,2,3, & 4 and t

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700, Steve Deering wrote: > > >>Here is a suggestion: > >> > >>1) change the wording of the subnet-local definition to say something > >> like: > >> > >> subnet-local scope is given a different and larger value > >> than link-local to enab

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:55:51 -0700, Steve Deering wrote: > > Either we're talking about the case where multilink subnets are not > employed (no need to believe in them), in which case my statement > holds. Right. > Or we are venturing into the oh-so-scary land of multilink subnets, > in which ca

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Date:Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:07:55 -0700 From:Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: | >Every router (whether IPv4 or IPv6) knows what subnets its own interfaces | >belong to (or, more accurately, what subnet numbers are a

RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> From: Robert Elz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I also assume that the necessary two implementations of all > of this, that will allow a doc containing it to advance to DS > have been documented in the implementation report? This draft is up for PS, not DS. --Brian ---

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Date:Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:14:50 -0700 From:"Brian Zill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | This draft is up for PS, not DS. It is entirely possible I've gotten myself confused here, but Rob Austein's message that started this thread said ...

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> | >Every router (whether IPv4 or IPv6) knows what subnets its own interfaces > | >belong to (or, more accurately, what subnet numbers are assigned to > | >the links to which it has interfaces). That is the most basic > | >configuration info provided to a router -- it is provided with t

RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Hi Brian, Just to clarify... The subnet-local multicast scope is defined in the Addressing Architecture document, which been sent to the IESG for consideration as a draft standard. Perhaps the mention of scoping has you thinking of the scoped addressing architecture? That hasn't been sent to

RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

03, 2002 04:58 > To: Brian Zill > Cc: Robert Elz; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and > draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt > > > > Hi Brian, > > Just to clarify... > > The subnet-local multicast scope is defined in the Addre

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Hi Robert, >And if I have > > A - B - C > >And A-B is prefix1::/64 and prefix3::/64, and B-C is prefix2::/64 and >prefix3::/64 (prefix1 != prefix2, prefix1 != prefix3, prefix2 != prefix3) >then subnet local multicast packets arriving at B are . ??? You haven't prov

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400 From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | You haven't provided the information that router B would use | to make that determination. Brian Haberman provided an entirely good enough answer (w

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400 > From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | You haven't provided the information that router B would use > | to make that determination. > > Brian Haberman provided

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At 02:21 AM 10/7/02, Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400 > From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > | You haven't provided the information that router B would use > | to make that determination. > >Brian

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I'm not sure, though, that Brian's explanation is consistent with the > following line in the scoped address architecture: > > "Each interface belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." > > Based on Brian's explanation, it would seem like the interfaces o

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> >Good catch Margaret. I should have noticed that the example given >actually violates the scoped addressing architecture doc. The >forwarding logic is still correct, but you can only have, at most, >one zone id per scope per interface. Otherwise you would have >overlapping scope zones. Are

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:19:44 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > In other words, I think that routers should default to the > single-link subnet case, unless mutli-link subnetting has been > explicitly configured. I agree. IET

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> >> Good catch Margaret. I should have noticed that the example given >> actually violates the scoped addressing architecture doc. The >> forwarding logic is still correct, but you can only have, at most, >> one zone id per scope per interface. Otherwise you would

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

>The more I think about it, the more I realize that "automagically" >creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work. >Especially with multiple prefixes per interface. So, this would be consistent with the suggestion that we change the Addr Arch document to list subnet-local and lar

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > >> The more I think about it, the more I realize that "automagically" >> creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work. >> Especially with multiple prefixes per interface. > > > So, this would be consistent with the suggestion that we > change the Ad

RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> The more I think about it, the more I realize that "automagically" > >> creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work. > >> Especially with multiple prefixes per interface. Why not? Can you elaborate? Shouldn't it always be tru

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Dave Thaler wrote: >>From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> The more I think about it, the more I realize that "automagically" creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work. Especially with multiple prefixes per interface. >>> > > Why not? Can you elaborate?

RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> -Original Message- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch- > v3-10.txt > > Dave Thaler wrote: > >

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Dave Thaler wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:48 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and > draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arc

RE: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> > > >>From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >> > > > The more I think about it, the more I realize that "automagically" > > > creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work. > > > Especially with multiple prefixes per interface. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Date:Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:18:09 -0700 From:"Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It should be fairly obvious by now that I haven't yet read the scoping-arch doc ... Normally I wouldn't comment about something I haven't read, my excuse is t

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At 02:25 PM 10/10/02, Robert Elz wrote: >So would I. The change I would make is to delete all references >of subnet-local from the addr-arch doc, and simply leave those values >as "to be defined" and then define them in the scoping-arch doc. This seems reasonable to me. It moves this issue ou

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > At 02:25 PM 10/10/02, Robert Elz wrote: > >> So would I. The change I would make is to delete all references >> of subnet-local from the addr-arch doc, and simply leave those values >> as "to be defined" and then define them in the scoping-arch doc. > > > This s

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Both Robert's approach and Brian's approach seem workable. Of the two, I think Brian's approach is better, because it collects the scoped address stuff in one place, which seems good on several counts. IETF IPng Working Group Ma

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

> What do other folks think? I think we need to all but deprecate scoped addresses except for a few limited purposes such as autoconfiguration and disconnected operation. Trying to make them work in a general purpose fashion places an untenable burden on hosts and applications.

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

At 10:01 AM 10/11/2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote: At 02:25 PM 10/10/02, Robert Elz wrote: So would I. The change I would make is to delete all references of subnet-local from the addr-arch doc, and simply leave those values as "to be defined" and then define them in the scoping-arch doc. Thi

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Brian, I think this goes to far. We have recently had a long discussion on the list regarding unicast site-local that concluded with keeping the definition of unicast site-local addresses in the document (see my email on 21 Jun 2002, titled "Consensus on Site-Local Discussion"). Part of that

Re: IPv6 subnet-local addresses and draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-10.txt

Date:Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:44:06 -0700 From:"Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Then you'd be in violation of the scoped addr architecture doc, | since you're sharing the same global prefix (prefix2) across | two site zones. If tha