Ron, > On Dec 2, 2019, at 7:36 AM, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Bob, > > Take a look at Section 4.2. The pseudocode is pretty specific.
Please explain. I don’t see that. Thanks, Bob > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:56 PM > To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> > Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com>; Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com>; > SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source Addresses > > Ron, > >> On Dec 1, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net> wrote: >> >> Mark, Bob, >> >> Yes, I agree that routers should not forward packets with link local source >> addresses. > > or Destination addresses. > >> >> Pablo, >> >> Maybe we should update section 4.2 of the network programming draft to >> reflect this? > > I was thinking that unless network programming has text that might cause one > to think it overrides the defined behavior from rfc4291 for link-local > addresses, I am not sure it has to be mentioned. > > Bob > > >> >> Ron >> >> >> From: Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:31 PM >> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming and Link Local Source >> Addresses >> >> >> >> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, 08:35 Bob Hinden, <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ron, >> >>> On Nov 30, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Ron Bonica >>> <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> Pablo, >>> >>> >>> >>> Consider the packet (SA,DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) where: >>> >>> >>> >>> • SA is link-local (fe80) >>> • DA, S3, S2, and S1 are all END.X >>> >>> >>> Section 4.2 suggests that this packet will be delivered over multiple hops >>> to its destination, regardless of its link-local source address. >> >> I would think that RFC2460 Section 2.5.6. "Link-Local IPv6 Unicast >> Addresses” covers this: >> >> Link-Local addresses are for use on a single link. Link-Local >> addresses have the following format: >> >> | 10 | >> | bits | 54 bits | 64 bits | >> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ >> |1111111010| 0 | interface ID | >> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ >> >> Link-Local addresses are designed to be used for addressing on a >> single link for purposes such as automatic address configuration, >> neighbor discovery, or when no routers are present. >> >> Routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or >> destination addresses to other links. >> >> I think that's RFC4291. >> >> RFC4007, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture" does too, more generally and >> probably more formally, in particular section 9, "Forwarding". >> >> Regards, >> Mark. >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Is this the case? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Juniper Business Use Only >>> _______________________________________________ >>> spring mailing list >>> spring@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >> Juniper Business Use Only
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
