Subject: Question about TEREDO prefix described in RFC 6890

From: MAWATARI Masataka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 22:21:23 +0900

Dear colleagues,

I have been wondering about TEREDO Prefix (2001::/32).
The following table on the RFC 6890 says that global of 2001::/32
is false.  But actually 2001::/32 is on the global routing table
now.  If they reject anycasted 2001::/32 by ingress prefix filter,
will TEREDO be workable?

If I have any missing points, please let me know.
---
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6890#section-2.2.3
<snip>
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Attribute            | Value          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Address Block        | 2001::/32      |
                    | Name                 | TEREDO         |
                    | RFC                  | [RFC4380]      |
                    | Allocation Date      | January 2006   |
                    | Termination Date     | N/A            |
                    | Source               | True           |
                    | Destination          | True           |
                    | Forwardable          | True           |
                    | Global               | False          |
                    | Reserved-by-Protocol | False          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                             Table 23: TEREDO
<snip>
---

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Masataka MAWATARI

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:21:16 -0500

Le 2014-01-30 08:21, MAWATARI Masataka a écrit :
> is false.

Looks to me like an errata in RFC 6890...

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:45:41 +1300

> Looks to me like an errata in RFC 6890...

Agreed. The entry for 2002::/16 is better and that approach
would work for 2001::/32, I think: N/A, see [RFC4380].

Both of these prefixes are routed as if they are global
but they are special, so neither True nor False is correct.

There is the same bug for fc00::/7, which is explicitly
of global scope but special: N/A see [RFC4193].

   Brian

---

From: MAWATARI Masataka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:24:19 +0900

Dear colleagues,

Thank you very much.  I didn't notice fc00::/7.
Based on your comments I wrote a modified version as below.

If anyone have any similar comments, I'd like to report that
as an errata.  Thanks in advance.

                    | Global               | N/A [RFC4380]  |

                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Attribute            | Value          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                    | Address Block        | fc00::/7       |
                    | Name                 | Unique-Local   |
                    | RFC                  | [RFC4193]      |
                    | Allocation Date      | October 2005   |
                    | Termination Date     | N/A            |
                    | Source               | True           |
                    | Destination          | True           |
                    | Forwardable          | True           |
                    | Global               | N/A [RFC4193]  |
                    | Reserved-by-Protocol | False          |
                    +----------------------+----------------+
                          Table 28: Unique-Local

Kind Regards,
Masataka MAWATARI

* On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:45:41 +1300
* Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Le 2014-01-30 08:21, MAWATARI Masataka a ecrit :