In line...
On 2007-10-04 04:34, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 07-10-03 à 17:09, Niall O'Reilly a écrit :
On 3 Oct 2007, at 14:13, Marc Blanchet wrote:
I understand your comment. However, the issues you are raising
(as well as others) related to 6to4 are already in the 6to4
security RFC (RFC3964), which is already referenced in the 6to4
paragraph. Therefore, I would suggest not to add any additional
text in order to not repeat what is already throughly discussed
in RFC3964.
I understand your response, and have some sympathy with your
point of view.
I see two possible goals here: "communication" and
"documentation". I'm not
sure whether both are intended goals of the document being
drafted. I think
they should be.
Repetition is a nuisance in documentation, as it involves
parallel maintenance.
OTOH, appropriate repetition is useful in communication, as it
helps underline
the message.
My sense of the purpose of this document is that its readers
ought to be
adequately or even compellingly guided towards doing "the right
thing". What
prompted me to comment as I did was that, in reading it, I
didn't quite find
the kind of guidance I was looking for.
I agree completly on the principle. If you refer to the first
versions of the document, that was the intent and I covered more
stuff around this to help people do the right thing concerning
routing policies. Actually, the first title of the document was
"IPv6 routing policies guidelines". But there were people concerned
about that direction. Therefore, it was decided to do something
similar to RFC3330, which roughly documents the special IPv6
addresses with very few if any info on routing policies. that was
the compromise to get the document with concensus. Therefore, I'm
trying to stick to the guidance that was previously agreed on the
scope/direction of the document , which is about near zero
reference to routing policies.
summary: I agree with your comment, but to my knowledge, this is
not the direction the wg wanted the document to have.
I would suggest making the reference to RFC 3964 more specific, e.g.
2.7. 6to4
2002::/16 are the 6to4 addresses [RFC4291][RFC3056]. The 6to4
addresses may be advertised when the site is running a 6to4 relay or
offering a 6to4 transit service. However, the provider of this
service should be aware of the implications of running such
service[RFC3964], which includes some specific filtering rules for
6to4. IPv4 addresses disallowed in 6to4 prefixes are listed
in section 5.3.1 of [RFC3964].
In reference to Joe's list, I think it's out of place to mention
14/8, but in any case, if the list is incomplete, we need to fix
RFC 3964. Having a different list here would be confusing.