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

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4443 (4445)
From:       otroan () employees ! org
Date:       2015-11-09 10:37:47
Message-ID: AE3754EB-C86B-474A-8112-CA84AFAD6E44 () employees ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Dennis,

>>> At Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:20:17 -0400,
>>> Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>   Looking for thoughts on this erratum.  Given my understanding of
>>>> the development of RFC 4443, I am inclined to reject this erratum.  It
>>>> appears to be making a retroactive change to the text to align with
>>>> current terminology and functionality.  That is not the function of the
>>>> errata system.
>>> 
>>> I agree that the proposed change goes beyond the level of errata.
>>> In particular, the proposed change to the Code 0 description rather
>>> seems to be a protocol update.
>> 
>> I agree.
> 
> I'm back at this after a bit.  Would it be possible for someone to tell me
> what the current protocol is so that I can figure out how to implement that?
> 
> Here's the situation I'm confused about.  I'm the Border router at the edge
> of an organization that was assigned 2601:db8:1a/48.  The organization
> has put bits of that space into use, say 2601:db8:1a:1000/54,
> 2601:db8:1a:1800/53 and 2601:db8:1a:9000/53; the rest of the space is unused.
> Border advertises 2601:db8:1a/48 to the Provider router it's attached to (or,
> equivalently, Provider static routes that destination to Border), i.e.
> 
>                                                       2601:db8:1a:1000/54
>                                                      /
>    +------------+                    +------------+ /
>    |            | 2601:db8:1a/48 --> |            |/
>    |  Provider  |<------------------>|   Border   |---2601:db8:1a:1800/53
>    |            |                    |            |\
>    +------------+                    +------------+ \
>                                                      \
>                                                       2601:db8:1a:9000/53
> 
> 
> What is supposed to happen when Border receives a packet destined
> to 2601:db8:1a::1 when Border has no default route?
> 
> Does something different happen when Border has a default route
> pointing at Provider?
> 
> Does something different happen when Border has no default route
> but does have a route to 2601:db8/32 pointing at Provider?
> 
> It is pretty clear that the packet to 2601:db8:1a::1 can't be
> delivered to anyone in any of these cases so I think the only
> question is, what error is sent back to the sender?

This looks like a configuration error. See RFC7084, WPD-5.
I suppose a route to null is a reject route, so unreachable code 6.

cheers,
Ole

["signature.asc" (signature.asc)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=E1lW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]