Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

> On 4 Apr 2024, at 20:52, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> All good changes, thanks.

Thanks, we tried to work in the comments and consensus save the question of SHOULD vs MUST for the known-local ULA insertion.

The authors point readers at the diff lined below to see what’s changed.  We made some tweaks to David’s section 8 on ULA-ULA/GUA, but that willed to change more if we do agree to move to a MUST.

> About this in section 3:
> 
> "AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors have had feedback suggesting this requirement should be a MUST, which would mean that "known-local" ULAs would take precedence on compliant implementations over all IPv6 GUAs and all IPv4 addresses, but other general ULAs would not."
> 
> I think the answer is clear, in section 8:
> 
> "Receiving a DNS response for a ULA destination that is not attached to the local network... will typically fail..."
> 
> That justifies the MUST in my opinion. But I agree we need to hear from kernel implementers.

Thanks, we need more such feedback.  You, Lorenzo and Ted have been notable proponents to date.

There’s also the question of implementations as requested by the chairs, presumably for hosts rather than routers.

Tim

>   Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nit: in the .txt version, there is a glitch in the rendering of Rule 5
> at the beginning of section 8.1 - the newlines have been lost.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 05-Apr-24 08:05, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt is now available. It is a
>> work item of the IPv6 Maintenance (6MAN) WG of the IETF.
>>    Title:   Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724
>>    Authors: Nick Buraglio
>>             Tim Chown
>>             Jeremy Duncan
>>    Name:    draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt
>>    Pages:   15
>>    Dates:   2024-04-04
>> Abstract:
>>    When RFC 6724 was published it defined an address selection algorithm
>>    along with a default policy table, and noted a number of examples
>>    where that policy table might benefit from adjustment for specific
>>    scenarios.  It also noted that it is important for implementations to
>>    provide a way to change the default policies as more experience is
>>    gained.  This update draws on several years of operational experience
>>    to refine RFC 6724 further, with particular emphasis on preference
>>    for the use of ULA addresses over IPv4 addresses and the addition of
>>    mandatory support for Rule 5.5.  The update also demotes the
>>    preference for 6to4 addresses.  The changes to default behavior
>>    improve supportability of common use cases, including automatic /
>>    unmanaged scenarios.  It is recognized that some less common
>>    deployment scenarios may require explicit configuration or custom
>>    changes to achieve desired operational parameters.
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/
>> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------