Subject: [v6ops] new draft: draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-00.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:55:01 -0700 (PDT)

A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address. Please take a look at it and comment.

---

From: sowmini varadhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:54:09 -0400

> Please take a look at it and comment.

Section 5: what happens if the algorithm ends up generating a Martian source
address (e.g., subnet broadcast)?

Nit: " Last Octet of the /24 prefix " is ambiguous: is this the
least-signficant byte
of the address or the least-significant non-zero byte of the prefix?

--Sowmini

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:14:41 +0800

Hi, Sowmini,

Thanks for your comments.

于 2011/7/26 22:54, sowmini varadhan 写道:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM,<[email-masked]>  wrote:

How about adding
For this /24 prefix, the algorithm MUST not generate subnet identifier 
or broadcast addresses as the source address of the ICMP packets.

> of the address or the least-significant non-zero byte of the prefix?

Thanks, It is the least-signficant byte of the address.

Regards,

xing

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:08:38 +1000

> address (e.g., subnet broadcast)?

Nothing happens. There is no subnet here. As section 4 states: "Addresses from the assigned address prefix are intended to be used as source addresses and not as destination addresses"

regards,

  Geoff

---

From: sowmini varadhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:54:36 -0400

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Geoff Huston <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Nothing happens. There is no subnet here. As section 4 states: "Addresses from the
> assigned address prefix are intended to be used as source addresses and not as
> destination addresses"

So the receiver should ignore Section 5.3.7 of rfc1812 for this case?
Also, are duplicate source addresses a problem?

--Sowmini

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:12:03 +1000

> So the receiver should ignore Section 5.3.7 of rfc1812 for this case?

not at all - the entire purpose of this draft is to request the designation
of a block of conventional (non-'martian') addresses to use as source addresses
in a stateless IPv6/IPv4 mapping scenario. 

> Also, are duplicate source addresses a problem?

no.

Geoff