Hi Tim,
Thanks for this, we’ve added your review as an issue at
https://github.com/buraglio/draft-buraglio-6man-rfc6724-update/issues/54.
Tim
On 23/07/2025, 09:49, "Timothy Winters via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update
Title: Prioritizing known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy
Reviewer: Timothy Winters
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned int-dir reviewer for this draft. These comments were written
with the intent of improving the Internet area aspects of the IETF drafts.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft. For background on int-dir, please see the
[FAQ](https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/intdir).
I think this document is ready, there are three minor technical issues that
need to be addressed before publication.
Technical:
Section 3.1
$known_local/48 - Later in the document, in Section 3.3 the range is documented
as /40 to /48. I would recommend putting the range in this table /48 to /40?
---
Section 3.3
These known-local ULA prefixes are inferred from ULA addresses assigned to
interfaces or learned from Prefix Information Options (PIOs) in Router
Advertisements (RAs) [RFC4861] received on any interface regardless of how the
PIO flags are set.
This reads to me that an implementation will need to merge all the ULA prefixes
they receive on any interface. I don't think that is the intention, I would
suggest clarifying.
---
Section 3.3
7. Entries MUST be removed from the known-local ULA list and the Policy Table
when the announced RIOs or PIOs are deprecated, or an interface address is
removed, and there is no covering RIO or PIO.
RIO can't be deprecated, they only have a valid lifetime this should be
invalidated?
---
Nits:
---
OLD:
It further clarifies the unconditional requirement for implementing Rule 5.5 of
RFC 6724
NEW:
It introduces a requirement to implement Rule 5.5 of RFC 6724
---
OLD:
This document therefore introduces two changes to RFC6724 to support a node
implementing
NEW:
This document therefore introduces two requirements to RFC6724 to support a
node implementing
---
OLD:
Known-local ULA: A ULA prefix that an individual organization/site has
determined to be local to a given node/network/administrative domain
NEW:
Known-local ULA: A ULA prefix that an node has determined to be local to a
given network domain.
---
Section 3.3
Tools that display a node's current policy table MUST show all currently
inserted known-local ULA prefixes.
What defines a tool?
---
|
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
