Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Sat, 25 November 2023 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
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 94147C15154A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:33:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qm-6eunHA7lt for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F120C151984 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5098e423ba2so3425691e87.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:33:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; t=1700872422; x=1701477222; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=983au4BN3Zy1pG8JqT2uYItvGTJremYFw42jB8L02Nc=; b=VfQ3jbpBjJ3XyTChoN0SaIS4nWwJSmfPpLq2p0Ycs+cf1K7JrWRYI1vrGOcplrbo40 g4jgDDanLSqTMv9JeFnGwtq2xHsyt138MfBNv0xn1RMb0yawoHqo9k2hkRPt86SQAiTQ WLJQoDIeCz2sxPjDeFDR2IQe8RIXiJUc1jtdI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700872422; x=1701477222; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=983au4BN3Zy1pG8JqT2uYItvGTJremYFw42jB8L02Nc=; b=mwN51tt6BnHvc6t+SvnQowznyktyb9RaOnIbHihofk15IKOf2IaLCV4s9tJELf4mFP vmHZBfTSyf7xESumvSq7PXIm1NZBY9Ok7fWYIh0ilC/wBmvc3LjbY4LbJhq7x26rVBSi EE+zGeGDFCs71vW912oxQV9/g+Y+ncPKaM+MAKSzaLchCyTEN0gVfpnD8eXX3zOAavQu L9pffeZhwbZ0QzqMTRbC2y0SILCrhmBDib4tGjmYjXV7zJoelYIx2xnyEkhO3aEZKUIf 5SNSz1RclbK1SAzUHRB8SK+fjOh9UapRPA27tnoLyOw3Xa/H1dPSfSoLYq/hJ8GX351t zxwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyzDKMXkrrvbBkV0bbX+UKgUTJv400fKa04qOaj/FseJYGhtXsj ld9fxSVTxVX/VhLZq0LZ4Nr145AQI1p2kBGIOoc+MA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEQ8aHqSDN4gXfI9Ux1fDtTafAK+1AT63pU3zFm1Jbf8shi5M068uH0Ns1IZ1hqL6dStDUcnQxBbzd3hh69Pps=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:911a:0:b0:508:26c0:92d0 with SMTP id t26-20020a19911a000000b0050826c092d0mr2858541lfd.62.1700872422406; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:33:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJU8_nV2QoGjZoegcUSXELqgeqW6OheTt32qq6YQ5XV0g5MPQw@mail.gmail.com> <10D22CA5-CD7A-471A-B4A9-21B77D16F5F7@employees.org> <CAJU8_nVQFvp_5ZnkByCvBeA7wFz9J5FVAeud2CD1Xd4UkyL_3Q@mail.gmail.com> <4202668E-EEBE-4FA6-9801-F2A9FC92CBD8@tiesel.net> <CAO42Z2y9g3ebZ2VuXDFSK71p3X2VMVQu2=h+sXSVhcfvvxn-Qg@mail.gmail.com> <CACMsEX8q7dmRAVXuOZFVS+z_hrks=n0ChBHR4Bz9gB9ryF0ZAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yFiKs09K-O+SxDytLst_Uu4MAae65PTgz3URLnc5MnQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAE=N4xcFU+87wXy8NkHuO7rZ-T7Z7VmTkfcYFJH3PAJ+8+NPww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWEAwzEw-2RpYxyf-i8x_0t8AS5O4GQ8=uB0GGYDFB5jA@mail.gmail.com> <a24c332c-e949-32cc-f660-a4434aab4eef@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a24c332c-e949-32cc-f660-a4434aab4eef@gmail.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 19:33:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nUmuxZc8USDTZPJ-nQ05K3joYcXgVsExZBo6GDioWW4mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Ed Horley <ed@hexabuild.io>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008bd47c060aef3892"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6l6b3K2zeJyvjHZYdP02kUjL_Dg>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 25 Nov 2023 00:33:48 -0000

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 7:22 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> > ULA and GUA must be treated differently for purposes of address
> selection: what remains in dispute is exactly *how* that treatment should
> differ, not *whether* it should.
>
> Yes. What we want, I think, is ULA->ULA to win over GUA->GUA and that
> means picking source and destination simultaneously. And we want ULA->GUA
> to never be tried unless the stack knows that NPTv6 is in place. And we
> can't do any of that correctly based on getaddrinfo() alone. So the draft
> is the best compromise given that we currently live with getaddrinfo().
>

I think it's still an open question (to Mark's email from Wednesday night
ET) whether we want to prefer GUA->GUA over ULA->ULA or vice versa. As a
small-time operator I don't have a preference since I do not use the same
names for both ULA and GUA AAAA records, but preferring ULA->ULA does
introduce one failure mode not under control of the local operator, which
is *another operator* leaking ULA addresses for public services, in so
doing causing connection timeouts or failovers to Happy Eyeballs. I don't
have an informed opinion about the relative impact of that kind of
configuration error versus whatever the costs are for using GUAs internally
to a network when ULAs would work.

Kyle