RE: RFC6724-bis?

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,
Thanks for the long message.
Unfortunately, it is not an explanation what is the problem with a simple solution: fc00::/7     45    13
Should be a use case that does not work. I do not see any. RFC 6724 has resolved RFC 5200 concerns, at least in respect of ULA.
My motivation: it is a very simple solution and it should work now.

About your case from IETF 113 that is related to ULA:
You have presented a routed network (with many hops) where you do not want the complexity of routing.
In a normal routing network, all routers know the best path to any particular prefix (especially routers on the default routing path).
You would like to have a solution that would not need routing.
As you said, “The product has to work in situations where the network administrators are completely nonexistent”.
It is a perfectly good reason.
Anyway, routers should converge somehow on the common view about available prefixes. Else they would forward not appropriate.
Just I am not sure that it is possible to tweak on-link protocols to help with off-link information (especially multi-hop).
Maybe https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/anima/about/ would help.
Maybe MLSN (multi-link subnet) would help ( integrate all links into one).
Maybe something else is needed (HomeNet2?).
Maybe ULA-specific prefixes (/48) would help somehow. I do not have enough imagination to understand why (and you are not ready to explain yet).
Should Enterprise wait till you would develop and disclose the solution?
Maybe. Because your task is very important (I am serious here!).

IMHO: chances are good that even after you would find a solution for the problem,
Just changing precedence “3” to “45” in gai.conf would be still the best for ULA.
Then maybe you would permit to use ULA now while you are thinking over the big challenge.
Modification for RFC 6724 may be done later if your solution would need it.

> I'm looking at this as an implementer of a product of which millions of units will be sold.
Is it mandatory to be equal for the discussion?

> I don't actually know what your motivation is here. Are you a network administrator? An IPv6 stack implementer? Are you concerned about code complexity?
I had an assumption that everybody here is thinking about “public good”, not a person's or company's interests.
IMHO: It is the root cause.

> "oh boy, I should change my product." So that's why I see you as being in the rough.
Agree. It is better not to stress any point so tough – people do not like it.
But I was asking only technical questions … nothing personal.
My bad. Sorry. I need to do something about it.

Eduard
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:37 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>
Cc: David Farmer <[e-mail]>; 6man WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RFC6724-bis?

Eduard, I think the first thing to say here is that you're pretty clearly in the rough. If you want to get your point across, you need to explain your objection in a way that sways the consensus, not simply insist that we explain ourselves better.

That said, I think it's reasonable to ask for a better explanation, regardless, so let me see if I can do that. I'm looking at this as an implementer of a product of which millions of units will be sold. The product has to work in situations where the network administrators are completely nonexistent. So a "network misconfiguration" in this context is actually just the interaction of two different products the implementers of which made different base assumptions.

What I want, in this situation, is for things to work in as many cases as possible. I don't want to be inundated with bug reports, simply put. Of course, it's possible that something will go wrong, but if we can anticipate a particular sort of dysfunction, and do something to address it, that's definitely going to make things better. And I have seen this particular dysfunction happen in bug reports, so it's not the case that I'm just theorizing here.

Now, it's entirely possible that what I'm doing in the product I'm talking about is incorrect, and that you know why it's incorrect and can say so. But you haven't done that yet—you haven't said something that makes me think "oh boy, I should change my product." So that's why I see you as being in the rough.

I don't actually know what your motivation is here. Are you a network administrator? An IPv6 stack implementer? Are you concerned about code complexity? It would help if you were to express an actual situation where the current consensus would affect a specific thing that you feel responsible for, whether that's an implementation, a network, or something else.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 8:31 AM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi David, thanks. But it is not enough for an explanation.

Section 2.2.2 RFC 5200 example is just not relevant to the current situation, it was relevant to RFC 3484.
It is solved by default because the separate label has been attached to ULA in RFC 6724.
Now, IPv4_DA/IPv4_SA would be prioritized above GUA_DA/ULA_SA because of rule 5 (label match).
No problem.

If you have any other scenario that may affect static ULA prioritization above anything else – please show it.

Why do you believe that address expansion above 2000::/3 would be affected?
If people would continue to use ::/0 as the default and RFC6724 has it in the RC6724 table
Then how the problem could happen?
I do not understand this use case too.

> Let’s only fix the problem and not make new problems for the next generation of network engineers and operators.
I claim that the ULA problem is very small. It may be treated as a pure configuration problem. Just add static:
     fc00::/7               45    13
to gai.conf. Hence, the draft in v6ops is enough.

PS: it does not solve MHMP but it is a problem that possible to separate

Eduard
From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 2:17 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: RFC6724-bis?

Please read the first paragraph of RFC6724 section 10.6 and all it’s references very carefully. In particular, read 2.2.2 of RFC 5220.

Your argument contradicts the conclusions of 2.2.2 of RFC 5220. In short, your argument is only true today while we are using 2000::/3 for GUA. When that eventually changes, and it will some day, we would have to yet again rejigger the table.

RFC 6724 is almost correct, the only thing it got wrong is that the section 10.6 modifications must be mandatory and automatic, and not optional, otherwise ULA is broken and dysfunctional.

Let’s only fix the problem and not make new problems for the next generation of network engineers and operators.

Thanks

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 02:27 Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I still do not understand why Ted and David care about "remote ULA".
If this ULA has been delivered to the local host by
Then it has been done intentionally.
Such a type of misconfiguration does not make sense to optimize.
Hence, it is possible to operate FC/7 as a whole, no need to split it for /48s.

Hence, why not install permanent precedence to FC/7 in gai.conf?
It would not play any role on the host till the local router would deliver ULA PIO.
And even after this, it would not be used till DNS would show the ULA destination
Because rule 5 (matching labels) would make GUA_DA/ULA_SA a low priority, GUA/GUA would be chosen.

What is the problem with permanently changed FC/7 precedence even above GUA?

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:47 AM
To: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: RFC6724-bis?

On 23-Sep-22 12:50, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Op do 22 sep. 2022 om 20:40 schreef David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>
>     I think leaving unknown, most likely remote, ULA at a lower priority and adding the /48 or other known local ULA to the table at a higher priority automatically should help mitigate ULA in the public DNS and the possible response of turning off IPv6.
>
>     In someways those that put ULA in the public DNS get what they deserve, I’m just worried about the remote user’s response to the brokenness, causing even more brokenness.
>
>
> Hm, okay. I think we are all actually in agreement then, since I heard Brian admitting earlier that it might be better to dynamically update the table.

Indeed, which was exactly why I wrote gai_wrap.py as a userland proxy for that approach.

    Brian

> I must have misunderstood what you meant by optimizing for the uncommon case—sorry about that!
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------