Subject: WG action - 1 week to discuss [LL8] Is additional Routing Consideration text needed?

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:36:48 +0100 (CET)

Please see http://www.spybeam.org/ll8.html

This does not seem particularly contentious.  If there is no discussion,
we will accept the recommendation to add no text.

A decision will be reached by 15 Feb 2003.

Alex, As you were the one who submitted the issue, please see whether
the response satisfies you.  If you have trouble recalling - this is
regarding draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-07.txt

Thanks,

Erik

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 17:21:11 +0700

Date:        Sat, 8 Feb 2003 17:36:48 +0100 (CET)
    From:        Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.SOL.3.96.1030208171811.27433C-100000@field>

  | Please see http://www.spybeam.org/ll8.html
  | 
  | This does not seem particularly contentious.

No, It should not be, but ...

  | If there is no discussion,
  | we will accept the recommendation to add no text.

I think that response missed the point completely, and isn't adequate.

What is currently in the draft (which was pointed out in the response)
is text that says that packets using LL addresses must not be forwarded
through routers.

The issue raised wasn't about that, but about the effect upon routing
protocols, and what they should do.

By default, most routing protocols will discover what addresses are
assigned to links on the router running the protocol, and advertise them
to other routers.

That is, by default, if a router sees that one of its interfaces has
been configured with 169.254.1.1/16 it would advertise 169.254.0.0/16
via RIP, or OSPF, or ... (maybe even BGP in some cases, though that one
usually needs to be explicitly told to advertise prefixes).

That's clearly not useful, nor what anyone would want.   And while it
might seem obvious that if packets to/from 169.254/16 can't be forwarded
through a router, then the router should not advertise that it knows how
to get to that net, the text currently doesn't say that.

It easily can, and should.

Add somewhere (a new section someplace)

	Routing Protocols

	The link local address block (169.254/16) MUST NOT be
	included as a reachable prefix in any dynamic routing protocol.
	Subnets of that address block (which should not exist - see sect N.M)
	MUST NOT be included either.

Rewording of that abomination much appreciated (I just can't think of
a better way to express it right now).

kre