Opened 14 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#23 closed technical (fixed)
inner source RLOC undefined in some cases
Reported by: | hartmans-ietf@… | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Component: | ms |
Severity: | - | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description
I am constructing the inner packet of a map request either because I'm
directly connected to the alt or because I'm going to send an outer
packet to the MR.
I need to construct a packet as the same IP version as the destination
EID I'm sending to.
It is undefined what RLOC I use for the source IP address in the inner
header if I have no RLOC of that address family.
For example I have v4 RLOCs and am sending to a v6 eid. It's
undefined what RLOC I should use in the inner header.
We should specify this. Except for receiving ICMP errors generated on the alt, it probably doesn't matter much, but it is a deficiency in the spec.
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by hartmans-ietf@…
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by luigi@…
Reply sent by Vince Fuller:
- The description of the tracker issue appears to be incorrect; the issue appears to be related to incompatible address family usage between source and destination of Map-Request. Dino stated in a response on 9/22/2009 that this scenario represents a misconfiguration. If this is not an acceptable response then perhaps the issue should be listed in section 5 (Open Issues
and Considerations) as I don't have a solution. Alternatively, the issue owner is asked to propose a mechanism and provide suggested text.
Note: ticket will be closed Friday 25th March unless the responses noted here do not address the concern. If the concern is still not addressed substantive reasoning would be appreciated.
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by luigi@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to resolved
The WG Chairs believe that the response provided is sufficient to close the ticket.
comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by luigi@…
- Status changed from resolved to closed
Joel ended up independently discovering this issue in his presentation for IETF 76. As far as I know there has been no discussion of how to fix.