[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-07.txt> (Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 N
From:       $B? () L () C#:H(B <jinmei () wide ! ad ! jp>
Date:       2014-03-25 16:21:55
Message-ID: CAJE_bqdwPGr07qcLhVYdwXx-z=MstbFHSd0vFvqgJX9czM+f7A () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

At Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:44:39 -0400,
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:

>      The IETF Last Call just started on this document.  Please review
> and comment.

I don't subscribe to the opsec ML so I'm only responding here.

I have one small comment: I think this sentence of Section 2.3 needs
some more clarification/correction:

   However, this
   static LLA configuration may be more complex to operate than
   statically configured greater than link-local addresses, because the
   link scope must also be considered, as in this example: 'BGP neighbor
   fe80::1%eth0 is down'.

- First off, it's not clear what "the link scope must also be
  considered" means.  With the example of fe80::1%eth0, I guess it
  tries to talk about the ambiguity of LLAs.  But, in principle, such
  ambiguity is not specific to statically configured LLAs.  So I also
  guess it's also based on the implicit assumption that statically
  configured interface id (such as "::1") tends to be less unique than
  EUI-64 based IIDs, thus tends to be more ambiguous in practice.  If
  this is what this sentence tries to say, I agree, but one would need
  quite a lot of speculation to reach this understanding.
- On the other hand, if this sentence tries to say something
  different, then I didn't get it, so (assuming I'm not the only one)
  it would need clarification anyway:-)
- assuming my guess in the first bullet is correct, "the link scope"
  in this context is not really the accurate term per RFC 4007.  This
  should be "the link (zone) index" ("scope" means a type of scope,
  such as "link" or "site").  I'd also suggest adding a reference to
  the RFC, since the reader may not be familiar with the '%eth0'
  notation.

Combining these, I'd suggest (based on my guessed understanding)
revising the sentence as follows:

   However, this
   static LLA configuration may be more complex to operate than
   statically configured greater than link-local addresses, because
   LLAs are inherently ambiguous for a multi-link node such as a
   router and tend to be more so when the interface ID is configured
   statically.  To deal with the ambiguity, the link zone index must
   also be considered explicitly, e.g., using the extended textual
   notation described in [RFC4007] as in this example: 'BGP neighbor
   fe80::1%eth0 is down'.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]