On 20 Nov 2015, at 1:30, Markus Stenberg wrote:
On 18.11.2015, at 17.02, Steven Barth <cy...@openwrt.org> wrote:
-6.4, first paragraph: "Each HNCP node SHOULD announce an IPv6
address
and - if it supports IPv4 - MUST announce an IPv4 address,"
I don't suppose there's any way we can make IPv6 a MUST?
I guess we could unify both and make them both SHOULD or MUST. Right
now
I can't really remember the argument for or against either but I will
discuss it with Markus.
This current MUST + SHOULD is actually result of developments during
summer (not sure if it was this summer, but I suspect so). Note that
it does NOT say that you MUST assign IPv4 and SHOULD assign IPv6; it
talkes entirely about announcing the said assignment. The assignment
is also used for conflict resolution, but (at the time) the people who
discussed these noted that RFC7217 is unlikely to conflict, and
therefore announcing the assignments is nice to have, but not
mandatory (and you could also use e.g. DAD if you really wanted to as
this is simply local state on a link). In case of IPv4, where we
essentially pick out of /26, 1 in 64 chance of collision (1 in ~8 due
to birthday paradox) was not considered as good odds and therefore it
was made a MUST; there is no IPv4 DAD as fallback either.
I am not fine with SHOULD for IPv4 as it will essentially break it; I
can live with MUST for IPv6 but consider it unneccessary. Let me know
how you feel about it (or if we should add the justification text to
the document).
Your answer makes perfect sense. My wishful thinking was just wishful.
Ben.
[...]
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
