Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 06 January 2021 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A19F3A108E; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:51:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bnTGYKDwE7TN; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCF8E3A106E; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 09:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6318389A3; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:52:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ZLaPCX_DohRe; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:52:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BED389A0; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:52:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259B0240; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:51:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, ipv6@ietf.org, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
In-Reply-To: <FA6275FF-E148-46DC-BCFD-987315765873@fugue.com>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <m1kx98E-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b53b5d62-0334-f791-f56a-f2122767ecdb@si6networks.com> <m1kxAVC-0000KhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <c236e635-518b-fb51-5024-901ec4677c5d@si6networks.com> <20210106162652.GX13005@Space.Net> <1ddf8850-a8cb-53a7-31bc-7433d5a984f2@si6networks.com> <1169.1609953092@localhost> <FA6275FF-E148-46DC-BCFD-987315765873@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:51:11 -0500
Message-ID: <13054.1609955471@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-jZSTnhUJvrpbtPk_bMm4G9mwKQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 17:51:17 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > On Jan 6, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >> And, yet, for the case where some device is doing dynamic DNS update to a DNS
    >> server that is within some ULA scope, posting the ULA to the DNS is actually
    >> correct.
    >> But, it's hard to know that without knowing what clients are expected to connect.

    > It seems straightforward that the client should send all the addresses
    > it wants to advertise, and the DNS server should decide which ones to
    > advertise in what scopes.

Ideally, yes.
If you ask from ULA xyz, and there is a ULA xyz answer, then clearly it
should be included.

But... caching and outsourcing of DNS servers and outsourcing of DNS resolvers.
I hate all of that: except for simpler (IoT) devices, which should always use
local DNS server to get local policy,  all this policy should be in the
client, not the server.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide