Hi Erik,

Thank you for catching this inconsistency. The choice of v4-mapped-v6 address 
was discussed while co-authoring RFC8029 and I think I mixed up and used the 
IPv6 loopback address in the YANG module. I will fix the same in the next 
revision of draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang.

Thanks,
Nagendra

On 7/20/20, 2:49 PM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    Hi Erik,

    You are correct, for IPV6 RFC8029 mentions 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104.

    Regards,
    Reshad.

    On 2020-07-20, 10:30 AM, "Erik Auerswald" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

        Hello Reshad,

        while the I-D draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 only specifies ::1/128
        as IPv6 loopback address, RFC 8029 sections 2.1., 3.4.1.1.1., and 4.3.
        specify to use the IPv4 loopback range as IP4-mapped IPv6 addresses for
        IPv6 MPLS echo request UDP packets, not the IPv6 loopback address 
::1/128.

        This seems to be inconsistent to me.

        Best regards,
        Erik

        On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
        > I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one 
manufacturer."
        > 
        > As for the details, see 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00
        > 
        > Regards,
        > Reshad.
        > 
        > 
        > On 2020-07-20, 4:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of tom petch" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
        > 
        >     I am not a fan of loopback seeing it as the implementation choice 
of one manufacturer.  On the other hand, the IETF has defined documentation 
addresses which many if not most writers of examples for YANG modules seem 
unaware of so if we add anything, I would add those.
        > 
        >     Tom Petch
        > 
        >     From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Juergen 
Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>
        >     Sent: 17 July 2020 20:25
        > 
        >       - There was a request to add types for loopback addresses
        >         (127.0.0.0/8 and ::1/128).
        > 
        >       - This is related to an effort to define a YANG module for MPLS 
LSP
        >         Ping (RFC 8029) but the details are unclear, i.e., what is 
exactly
        >         needed and how such a type will be used and whether there is a
        >         common need for types for loopback addresses.
        > 
        >       - Proposal: do not add such types at this point in time
        > 
        >     --
        >     Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
        >     Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | 
Germany
        >     Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         
<https://www.jacobs-university.de/>


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to