Re: mech-v2: SLLA/TLLA changes

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

In a slightly different order..

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Francis Dupont wrote:
>
> PS: a MUST is incompatible with 6over4 too and we have not free time to
> kill (i.e., make historic) 6over4 and all.

Yes, but that is 6over4, not mech-v2 bis (configured tunneling), so
this seems orthogonal to this argument, specification-wise.

>    1) Based on Chirayu's comments earlier, I've changed the rule (from
>    SHOULD NOT) to MUST NOT send TLLA/SLLA options on configured tunnels.  
>    I believe some very old implementations, ages ago, did this, but it
>    seems to make sense to get them fixed if they want to conform to the
>    new specification. (See below.)  This does not create a severe interop
>    problem as long as the other end implements the "MUST ignore" as well.
>    
> => I object to this change because some usages were found (so could be found
> in future) to IPv4 addresses in TLLA/SLLA: "SHOULD NOT" is enough.
> An example is the (expired, ask if you can't find it) draft
> "draft-ietf-ngtrans-hometun-01.txt" which was implemented and IMHO
> has still interested waiting for the MOBIKE stuff which should provide
> a better solution.

I'm doubtful of the usefulness of preserving something like this, but
unless there are others in the WG who feel that this should be a MUST
NOT and not SHOULD NOT, I can put this back like it was because it
doesn't really cost anything or cause problems.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings