Either way works for me. I’m happy with Lorenzo’s code. I’m also happy to have with this and a ”pure garbage” return code, if folks find useful to make that distinction. Comments?
Pascal From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: jeudi 20 avril 2017 12:03 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> Cc: Erik Nordmark <[email protected]>; Christian Huitema <[email protected]>; Brian Haberman <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis I think so. the unspecified address is certainly not topologically correct because it's not in the right /64. In general, random garbage has only one chance in 2^64 of being topologically correct. :-) On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Lorenzo: Say the user registers, say, unspecified, is “Address topologically incorrect” the right thing? I can add that code, but how do you return that the requester asks for pure garbage? Take care, Pascal From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: jeudi 20 avril 2017 11:55 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Erik Nordmark <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Christian Huitema <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Brian Haberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [6lo] Draft applicability for 6775bis On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I also removed the administrative rejection, the return codes are now as follows: [...] | 8 | Invalid Registered Address: The address being registered | | | is not usable on this link, e.g. it is not topologically | | | correct | As worded, it's not clear to me how this option is substantially different from the administrative rejection option. Could it be scoped more tightly, e.g., renamed to "Address topologically incorrect"?
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
