On 29 May 2013, at 00:57, Michael Sweet msw...@apple.com wrote:
Brian,
On 2013-05-28, at 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm increasingly baffled by the use case. If the host is
in a context where it can reach a server *and* has more than
one interface
Michael Sweet mailto:msw...@apple.com
29 May 2013 01:27
Ray,
On 2013-05-28, at 3:34 PM, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
Warning: post contains dumb questions.
No such thing! :)
...
All of this falls apart with link-local addresses and RFC 6874. Because
the client is required to
Michael,
It would be awesome if printers supported Neighbor Discovery, but of the four
printers in my home office only three support IPv6 and only one supports ND.
One of the IPv6 printers is 3 years old, the other three are less than a year
old...
On the client side you'll find a
Hi Ole,
Am 29.05.2013 13:47, schrieb Ole Troan:
confused. a host cannot support IPv6 if it doesn't support ND. could
you please clarify?
I'm not sure that your statement is fully correct.
Though I'm convinced that ND provides many useful
features, in specific environments and rare cases
the
confused. a host cannot support IPv6 if it doesn't support ND. could
you please clarify?
I'm not sure that your statement is fully correct.
Though I'm convinced that ND provides many useful
features, in specific environments and rare cases
the use of ND may be problematic (due to security
Hi Roland,
On 5/29/13 8:46 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
Hi Ole,
Am 29.05.2013 13:47, schrieb Ole Troan:
confused. a host cannot support IPv6 if it doesn't support ND. could
you please clarify?
I'm not sure that your statement is fully correct.
Though I'm convinced that ND provides many
Ray,
On 2013-05-29, at 2:52 AM, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
...
Where's the standard that says ZoneID MUST be included in the Host
header? I presume this is rfc2616#page-128.
RFC 2616 just says to use the host and port from the original URI. It doesn't
say anything about IPv6
Ole,
On 2013-05-29, at 7:47 AM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
Michael,
It would be awesome if printers supported Neighbor Discovery, but of the
four printers in my home office only three support IPv6 and only one
supports ND. One of the IPv6 printers is 3 years old, the other
Hi Ole,
Am 29.05.2013 14:49, schrieb Ole Troan:
confused. a host cannot support IPv6 if it doesn't support ND. could
you please clarify?
I'm not sure that your statement is fully correct.
Though I'm convinced that ND provides many useful
features, in specific environments and rare cases
Hi Brian,
Am 29.05.2013 15:00, schrieb Brian Haberman:
On 5/29/13 8:46 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
I'm not sure that your statement is fully correct.
Though I'm convinced that ND provides many useful
features, in specific environments and rare cases
the use of ND may be problematic (due to
On 5/29/13 10:59 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
Hi Brian,
Am 29.05.2013 15:00, schrieb Brian Haberman:
On 5/29/13 8:46 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
I'm not sure that your statement is fully correct.
Though I'm convinced that ND provides many useful
features, in specific environments and rare
Hi Brian,
I was referring to RFC 2460. RFC 6434 states
ND SHOULD be supported, which makes perfectly sense.
In very rare cases you may not be able to use ND
(e.g., if you have a unidirectional medium etc.).
But there are MUSTs sprinkled in that section as well...
The way I read it was:
Ray == Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net writes:
Ray Warning: post contains dumb questions.
good. That usually mean that the document says something dumb.
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze
it. The consensus of the working group so far is that interface
Ray == Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net writes:
What if both the server AND the client have multiple interfaces: how do
they both know which local interface on their own node is mutually
connected and to be used for communication? There's only one single
zoneid in the URI, so
Michael,
On 2013-05-29, at 12:58 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
...
I have a stupid question.
What does it mean to have an interface identifier go through an HTTP proxy?
Given that a proxy works by having the client send the entire URL on the
GET line, it means that my
Michael,
On 2013-05-29, at 1:09 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
...
Ray How does the very first URI learn the correct ZoneID in the first
place?
Ray Manually.
In a Bonjour/mDNS scenario, the client sees the link-local address on
interface
with zoneID FOO, and
Michael Sweet mailto:msw...@apple.com
29 May 2013 20:13
Michael,
One important point here: we don't send IPv6 link local addresses in
this case, we send the .local hostname that the printer is using. This
avoids the whole issue of IPv6 link-local addresses in URIs, we just
have to deal
Michael,
let me try a restart.
you need to use link-local addresses for the HTTP connection between a client
and a printer.
a link-local address has link-local scope. it is ambiguous outside of the given
link (zone).
see RFC4007.
an application using link-local addresses must be bound to the
Ray,
On May 29, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
Michael Sweet mailto:msw...@apple.com
29 May 2013 20:13
Michael,
One important point here: we don't send IPv6 link local addresses in
this case, we send the .local hostname that the printer is using. This
avoids the
Ole,
On May 29, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
...
now the question becomes, what do you do with the embedded URIs containing
link-local addresses?
For a web page, the user would click on links/buttons that open other pages on
the printer.
For an IPP response, the
Ole == Ole Troan otr...@employees.org writes:
Ole could you not infer the link-local zone of the referral from
Ole the transport session?
Ole given a link-local transport connection using a link-local
Ole zone, would it ever make
Ole sense that the referrals using
Michael == Michael Sweet msw...@apple.com writes:
Ray How does the very first URI learn the correct ZoneID in the first
place?
Ray Manually.
In a Bonjour/mDNS scenario, the client sees the link-local address on
interface
with zoneID FOO, and records that. The client
Ole,
On 2013-05-24, at 4:33 PM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
...
All of this falls apart with link-local addresses and RFC 6874. Because the
client is required to remove the zoneid from the outgoing request, the URIs
it gets back from the server are no longer reachable.
how is
Kerry,
On 2013-05-24, at 1:58 PM, Kerry Lynn ker...@ieee.org wrote:
Michael,
Can I echo what Tom and Christian have said - that you join the 6man working
group and start by clearly and concisely stating the problem that this RFC
poses
for your application and how you suggest we fix it?
Warning: post contains dumb questions.
Michael Sweet wrote:
Christian,
On 2013-05-24, at 1:45 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Can we move from the process discussion to the technical discussion?
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze it. The
I'm increasingly baffled by the use case. If the host is
in a context where it can reach a server *and* has more than
one interface (such that a ZoneID is needed at all), it
shouldn't be using a link local address anyway - it
should have configured a global scope address (possibly
under a ULA
Ray,
On 2013-05-28, at 3:34 PM, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
Warning: post contains dumb questions.
No such thing! :)
...
All of this falls apart with link-local addresses and RFC 6874. Because the
client is required to remove the zoneid from the outgoing request, the URIs
it gets
Brian,
On 2013-05-28, at 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm increasingly baffled by the use case. If the host is
in a context where it can reach a server *and* has more than
one interface (such that a ZoneID is needed at all), it
shouldn't be using a link local
, May 22, 2013 11:10 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: br...@innovationslab.net; ipv6@ietf.org; bob.hin...@gmail.com;
ted.le...@nominum.com; RFC Errata System
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6874 (3630)
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the
zoneid
...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Sweet
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:10 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: br...@innovationslab.net; ipv6@ietf.org; bob.hin...@gmail.com;
ted.le...@nominum.com; RFC Errata System
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6874 (3630)
Brian,
What you're apparently
@ietf.org; bob.hin...@gmail.com;
ted.le...@nominum.com; RFC Errata System
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6874 (3630)
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the
zoneid to choose a network interface to route packets to that link
local
address
Can we move from the process discussion to the technical discussion?
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze it. The consensus
of the working group so far is that interface identifiers are private to the
host, that any leakage outside the host should be prevented, and that a
Michael,
Can I echo what Tom and Christian have said - that you join the 6man working
group and start by clearly and concisely stating the problem that this RFC
poses
for your application and how you suggest we fix it?
When you speak of hundreds of millions of printers... it gives the
impression
Christian,
On 2013-05-24, at 1:45 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Can we move from the process discussion to the technical discussion?
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze it. The consensus
of the working group so far is that interface identifiers
Some background: HTTP and IPP services in printers include absolute URIs in
the content they return. For IPP this can be http/https URLs to the printer's
web page, ICC profiles, and other resources, along with the ipp/ipps URIs
that the printer supports. For HTTP the most common are https
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Michael Sweet msw...@apple.com wrote:
Christian,
On 2013-05-24, at 1:45 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Can we move from the process discussion to the technical discussion?
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze
Christian,
On 2013-05-24, at 2:41 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
...
All of this falls apart with link-local addresses and RFC 6874. Because the
client is required to remove the zoneid from the outgoing request, the URIs
it gets back from the server are no longer
Kerry,
On 2013-05-24, at 2:51 PM, Kerry Lynn ker...@ieee.org wrote:
...
Just so we're clear, I assume this does NOT work today with link-local IPv6
addresses (because no print client yet
constructs a Host URI with link-local address and zoneID according to RFC
6874)? And you're saying
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Michael Sweet msw...@apple.com wrote:
Kerry,
On 2013-05-24, at 2:51 PM, Kerry Lynn ker...@ieee.org wrote:
...
Just so we're clear, I assume this does NOT work today with link-local
IPv6 addresses (because no print client yet
constructs a Host URI with
Kerry,
On 2013-05-24, at 3:44 PM, Kerry Lynn ker...@ieee.org wrote:
...
scheme://[v1.fe80:::...:+zoneid]:port/path
So it appears the current 'host' production used by print drivers is not
currently specified
by any RFC; why not just continue to use the same format irrespective
Michael,
Can we move from the process discussion to the technical discussion?
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze it. The
consensus of the working group so far is that interface identifiers are
private to the host, that any leakage outside the host should be
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the zoneid to choose
a network interface to route packets to that link local address. If the server
returns a uri in its response that uses the same link local address but without
the client's zoneid, then the client will be
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Michael Sweet wrote:
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the zoneid to
choose a network interface to route packets to that link local address.
If the server returns a uri in its response that uses the same link
local address but without the
Of Michael
Sweet
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:10 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: br...@innovationslab.net; ipv6@ietf.org; bob.hin...@gmail.com;
ted.le...@nominum.com; RFC Errata System
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6874 (3630)
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client
I happen to agree that a change like this would be a good change, but I also
agree that it needs to be done as a consensus document, not as an erratum.
This is true not only for process reasons, but because I think the change as
proposed was too broad. Is there a working group alive where
Mikael,
On 2013-05-23, at 2:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Michael Sweet wrote:
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the zoneid to
choose a network interface to route packets to that link local address. If
the server
On 5/23/13 9:42 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
I happen to agree that a change like this would be a good change, but I also
agree that it needs to be done as a consensus document, not as an erratum.
This is true not only for process reasons, but because I think the change as
proposed was too broad.
: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6874 (3630)
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the zoneid to choose
a network interface to route packets to that link local address. If the server
returns a uri in its response that uses the same link local address but without
On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
6MAN.
Really? I would have assumed that this would be an http document, but if it
can be done in 6man, that would be cool.
IETF IPv6 working group
On 5/23/13 11:23 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 23, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
6MAN.
Really? I would have assumed that this would be an http document, but if it
can be done in 6man, that would be cool.
RFC 6874 was published by 6MAN. There was input
I happen to agree that a change like this would be a good change, but I also
agree that it needs to be done as a consensus document, not as an erratum.
This is true not only for process reasons, but because I think the change as
proposed was too broad. Is there a working group alive
On 5/23/13 11:42 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
I happen to agree that a change like this would be a good change, but I also
agree that it needs to be done as a consensus document, not as an erratum.
This is true not only for process reasons, but because I think the change as
proposed was too broad.
Reported] RFC6874 (3630)
Brian,
What you're apparently missing is that the client is using the zoneid to
choose a network interface to route packets to that link local address. If
the server returns a uri in its response that uses the same link local
address but without the client's zoneid
As far as I can tell this is completely incorrect and the RFC is
completely correct. It's so wrong that I can't even see how to
explain it. By definition, a ZoneID has no meaning outside the
host; its only effect is to direct the packet to the desired
interface on that host. It has absolutely
54 matches
Mail list logo
