Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-17.txt> (Prioritizing known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy) to Proposed Standard

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 12 March 2025 07:41 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-17.txt> (Prioritizing known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy) to Proposed Standard
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Sender: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <174176527770.694925.6755952189901526949@dt-datatracker-775fc5cbb8-824tp>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:41:17 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 6BVDN2ZGPQOZWFR4U3TSDO6NC2JDICOC
CC: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update@ietf.org, furry13@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/tN_co_8xpQERWtMv70EAHN6mHqA>

The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'Prioritizing known-local IPv6 ULAs
through address selection policy'
  <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-17.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-04-02. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   This document draws on several years of operational experience to
   update RFC 6724, defining the concept of "known-local" ULA prefixes
   that enable ULA-to-ULA communications within fd00::/8 to become
   preferred over both IPv4-IPv4 and GUA-to-GUA for local use.  The
   document defines the means by which nodes can both identify and
   insert such prefixes into their address selection policy table.  It
   also clarifies the mandatory, unconditional requirement for support
   for Rule 5.5 and demotes the preference for 6to4 addresses.  These
   changes to default behavior improve supportability of common use
   cases, including automatic / unmanaged scenarios, and makes
   preference for IPv6 over IPv4 consistent in local site networks for
   both ULA and GUA prefixes.  It is recognized that some less common
   deployment scenarios may require explicit configuration or custom
   changes to achieve desired operational parameters.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-17.txt… The IESG