Subject: RE: (ngtrans) I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ngtrans-mech-04.txt

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 14:27:15 -0700

I skimmed through this draft, focusing on changes. Mostly looks good.

I notice it references 6over4 now, probably also needs to reference 6to4.

It talks about AAAA records, probably also needs to mention A6.

Section 3.7 says
     Both the configured and automatic tunnels are IPv6 interfaces (over
     the IPv4 "link layer") thus must have link-local addresses.  The
     link-local addresses are used by routing protocols operating over
     the tunnels. 

I disagree with this - I think link-local addresses should only be required
for genuine links, those which employ Neighbor Discovery. So for this
document, that would be 6over4 links and bidirectional configured tunnels.

Rich

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:45:10 -0400

Richard,

All "interfaces" should have link-local addresses.  We support
link-local addresses for all interfaces including tunnel "interfaces".

How they are used (ergo RIPNG or ND btw configured tunnels) and when is
and should not be part of this discusssion, they are a capability in the
IPv6 architecture like many parts we have which may not be used right
now.

If you can show or state why they cause harm or interoperability issues
for IPv6 I would like to hear that discussion.

I strongly believe tunnel "interfaces" should be allowed to have
link-local addresses.  I actually believe it should be a MUST.

For me unidirectional and bidirectional are common use terms for tunnels
and VPNs but if folks want to define them precisely I guess thats OK.

my 2 cents,
/jim