Subject: Question on scopes involving IPv6 addresses

From: alex r <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:25:58 -0800 (PST)

Is the following a valid configuration in IPv6. The
addresses represented in as (L) are either all site
local or all link local addresses

    A(L1)---------(L2)B(L1)----------(L2)C

B is connected to two different links / sites. The
addresses are unique within their respective scopes.

Thanks
Alex

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alain Ritoux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:38:40 +0100

> addresses are unique within their respective scopes.

For me this seems correct

But I wonder if we can push as far as :
    A(L1)---------(L2)B(L2)----------(L1)C
    the assumptions being the same.

Alain.

--------------------------------------------------------
Alain RITOUX
Tel +33-1-39-30-92-32   Fax +33-1-39-30-92-11
Address :  6WIND
           1 place Charles de Gaulle
           Immeuble Central Gare
           78180 MONTIGNY LE BRETONNEUX
           FRANCE
web site : www.6wind.com
--------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 02:50:29 -0800

>addresses are unique within their respective scopes.

Yes, that is a valid configuration.

>    the assumptions being the same.

Yes, that one is valid too.

By the way, an updated version of the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture
draft was submitted by the ID deadline and should appear in the ID
directories Any Day Now.  It can also be fetched now from:

ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/ipv6/draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-02.txt

Steve

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 19:54:12 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 09:38:40 +0100, 
>>>>> Alain Ritoux <[email-masked]> said:

> For me this seems correct

Yes, this is correct.

>     the assumptions being the same.

This is correct, too, provided that the B's two interfaces belong to
different links.  For more details about the scoped addresses
(including link-local and site-local ones) architecture, see 
draft-ietf-ipngwg-scoping-arch-xx.txt
(the 01 version is the latest one, which has already expired, but the
02 version has been submitted and will soon be out.)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:48:02 -0500

In the case where L1 and L2 are site local addresses, I think B must be 
configured so that it doesn't forward site local addresses between its two 
interfaces (the behavior of B w.r.t. site local addresses wasn't specified 
in the original message).  That is, A and the left-hand interface of B are 
part of one site while C and the right-hand interface of B are part of a 
different site.

I'll ask for confirmation of this hypothesis, as thinking about site local 
addresses generally makes my head hurt.

- Ralph

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:11:57 +0700

Date:        Tue, 06 Mar 2001 08:48:02 -0500
    From:        Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <4.3.2.7.2.20010306084100.0352dd40@loopback>

  | I'll ask for confirmation of this hypothesis, as thinking about site local 
  | addresses generally makes my head hurt.

To be legal yes, that's how it would have to be - B would need to be
at a site boundary, and not forwarding site local from one to the other.

The comment from the original message "The addresses are unique within
their respective scopes." suggests that must be the intent.

kre

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 07:34:23 -0800

At 8:48 AM -0500 3/6/01, Ralph Droms wrote:
>In the case where L1 and L2 are site local addresses, I think B must
>be configured so that it doesn't forward site local addresses between
>its two interfaces (the behavior of B w.r.t. site local addresses wasn't
>specified in the original message).  That is, A and the left-hand
>interface of B are part of one site while C and the right-hand
>interface of B are part of a different site.

That's correct.  This is all covered in the aforementioned Scoped
Address Architecture draft.

>I'll ask for confirmation of this hypothesis, as thinking about site
>local addresses generally makes my head hurt.

If it helps your head at all, you can analogize this to what an IPv4
router has to do if it is attached to more than one "private" address
space (e.g., more than one hunk of real or virtual [as in VPN] topology
that reuses the same "net 10" address space).  If that just makes your
head hurt worse, then forget I suggested it.

Steve