Subject: Re: Source Address Selection just from Routing Information

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:06:05 +0200

Le Friday 30 November 2007 04:56:58 FUJIKAWA Kenji, vous avez écrit :
> The downstream interface of router R is assigned both addresses
> 2001:db8:1001:R and 2001:db8:3001:R.
> This is required even if R has only a single downstream link.

As your document notes, these is needed *anyway*, because of source address 
ingress filtering by upstream ISPs.

One question though: I am a bit confused whether you're trying to replace 
RFC3484 completely, or only to change Rule 8?

Also, you seem to suggest that "next hop" router addresses would become 
non-link-local prefix. Not sure about DHCPv6, but AFAIK, this contradicts 
ICMPv6 autoconfiguration as we currently know it. What is the proposed 
solution?

Similarly:

      Note that the method of distributing routing information that
      configures the routing tables mentioned in this document, is out
      of the scope of this document. Some intra-domain routing protocol
      may be adaptable.

Given the current size and churn of the routing tables, is this at all 
practical?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: FUJIKAWA Kenji <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:41:56 +0900

Rémi Denis-Courmont;

Thank you for your comments.

At Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:06:05 +0200,
> RFC3484 completely, or only to change Rule 8?

No.

This method should be added as one of the rules, 
or become one independent RFC.

The important thing is that some possible methods should be shown 
for implementers and network managers.
Then, they are responsible for choosing which method to take.

> ICMPv6 autoconfiguration as we currently know it. 

Yes.

> What is the proposed 

As said in the following, some routing protocol should be employed.

> Given the current size and churn of the routing tables, is this at all 

Of course, an end host may have a full routing table,
but it doest not have to have necessarily.

This is the same situation to RFC3484.
In RFC3484, the policy table does not have a full route
in order to determine a source address.

However, in my method, routing tables of end nodes and 
the upstream router must not conflicts with each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------
FUJIKAWA Kenji(Ph. D.) ROOT Inc., Osaka Information Laboratory
5F Pias Tower, 3-19-3 Toyosaki Kita-ku, Osaka, 531-0072, Japan
Mail:  [email-masked], [email-masked]
WWW:   http://www23.atwiki.jp/hudikaha/
Skype: fujikawakenji
Tel:   +66-8-4773-3252