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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
> 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
---
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 ...
> | >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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
>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
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
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
>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
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
> 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
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?
> -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:
> >
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
> > > >>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.
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
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
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
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
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
> 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.
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
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
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
38 matches
Mail list logo