Re: [MEXT] Issue #4 Remove references to site-local addresses [George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>]

["George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>]

I am on vacation so I can not check your text right now, but I
proposed text for this when I brought up the issue, a long time ago.
Was anything wrong with it?

Thanks
George




On 6/28/08, Charles E. Perkins <charles.perkins at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I've reviewed the discussion about issue #4, and it seems to me that
> a relatively painless compromise is available.  Namely, we could simply
> delete the "SHOULD NOT" recommendation regarding the use of
> ULAs as home or care-of addresses, while maintaining the cautionary
> note about potential inaccessibility of correspondent nodes.
>
> Here is the resultant text, which is otherwise almost identical to
> George's text except for splitting a run-on sentence into two
> sentences.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OLD TEXT:
> =========
> 3.1. General Terms
> ...
>    unicast routable address
>
>       An identifier for a single interface such that a packet sent to it
>       from another IPv6 subnet is delivered to the interface identified
>       by that address.  Accordingly, a unicast routable address must
>       have either a global or site-local scope (but not link-local).
>
> NEW TEXT:
> =========
> 3.1. General Terms
> ...
>    unicast routable address
>
>       An identifier for a single interface such that a packet sent to it
>       from another IPv6 subnet is delivered to the interface identified
>       by that address.  Accordingly, a unicast routable address must
>       either be global IPv6 address or a unique local IPv6 address.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> OLD TEXT:
> =========
> 4.6. Site-Local Addressability
>
>
>    This specification requires that home and care-of addresses MUST be
>    unicast routable addresses.  Site-local addresses may be usable on
>    networks that are not connected to the Internet, but this
>    specification does not define when such usage is safe and when it is
>    not.  Mobile nodes may not be aware of which site they are currently
>    in.  It is hard to prevent accidental attachment to other sites, and
>    ambiguity of site-local addresses can cause problems if the home and
>    visited networks use the same addresses.  Therefore, site-local
>    addresses SHOULD NOT be used as home or care-of addresses.
>
> NEW TEXT:
> =========
> 4.6. Unique-Local Addressability
>
>    This specification requires that home and care-of addresses MUST be
>    unicast routable addresses.  Unique-local IPv6 unicast addresses
>    [RFC4193] may be usable on networks that use such non-globaly routable
>    addresses but this specification does not define when such usage is
>    safe and when it is not.  Mobile nodes may not be aware of which site
>    they are currently making it hard to prevent accidental attachment
>    to other sites, resulting in possible unrechability between the MN
>    and the HA, when unique-local IPv6 routable addresses are used as
>    care-of addresses.  CNs outside the MN's own site are unlikely
>    to be reachable when unique-local IPv6 routable addresses are used
>    as home addresses. If such addresses are used, however, according
>    to [RFC4193], they are treated as any other global unicast IPv6
>    address so, for the remainder of this specification, use of
>    unique-local IPv6 unicast addresses is not differentiated
>    from other globally unique IPv6 addresses.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> OLD TEXT:
> =========
> 10.4.2. Processing Intercepted Packets
> ...
>                                             ... Packets addressed to
>    the mobile node's site-local address SHOULD NOT be tunneled to the
>    mobile node by default.
>
> NEW TEXT (None: old text removed)
> =========
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> OLD TEXT:
> =========
> 11.3.1. Sending Packets While Away from Home
> ...
>    o  While not at its home link, the mobile node MUST NOT use the Home
>       Address destination option when communicating with link-local or
>       site-local peers, if the scope of the home address is larger than
>       the scope of the peer's address.
>
> NEW TEXT:
> =========
> 11.3.1. Sending Packets While Away from Home
> ...
>    o  While not at its home link, the mobile node MUST NOT use the Home
>       Address destination option when communicating with link-local peers.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> OLD TEXT:
> =========
> 11.5.4. Returning Home
> ...
>                                 ...The mobile node MUST multicast such a
>    Neighbor Advertisement for each of its home addresses, as defined by
>    the current on-link prefixes, including its link-local address and
>    site-local address.
>
> NEW TEXT:
> =========
> 11.5.4. Returning Home
> ...
>                                 ...The mobile node MUST multicast such a
>    Neighbor Advertisement for each of its home addresses, as defined by
>    the current on-link prefixes, including its link-local address.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I recommend accepting the above changes in rfc3775bis-01, and
> thereby resolving issue #4.
>
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext