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

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net> Sun, 26 November 2023 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
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 077A2C14CE45 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:56:57 -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=forwardingplane.net
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 otYbheuCHhcR for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (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 6798AC14F73E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:56:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4238a0b67e7so18638281cf.2 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:56:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=forwardingplane.net; s=google; t=1701014212; x=1701619012; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/3EhYy0fAxWrTwtSOxcFLtwH22e2qKWBMk4OfrdJSjk=; b=QvKfQWWKI4MByc4bhOo4E2vD0moFFrx5u0ABu9GarSMSJzYFTiOyzkAPveqkjSATAa ykny+VN5vGWv2YMC3/PyZlylfZs/De1RNushTZWGf/fEtd2VOyTunPLRV5qxdriznK+5 +38W/keR9ASZ6f/Wc+B+17fLqaxk8xm8O6EHk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1701014212; x=1701619012; h=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=/3EhYy0fAxWrTwtSOxcFLtwH22e2qKWBMk4OfrdJSjk=; b=sbR2CHEgELKON8EsxaoVI+O0IIaBBI3VZ4MPXOVjT+S/oL+Ws8i8g3NQGmWG7q4qEK LY2a5yMlBL1CIH9phg7+8M6Odt7nkSMJBWO+T5YEh95MjR5bS2Pt/gRZQ2gZmXdr2XVf ZD+OXD5beibNA3Dry2Xb9CT44neNI0MNVp8SKKwMHJRW73F5vKQUKF9A2MRhrOyFMDiw 6+I4NOhCdnPQpfP6wQCZPWZMKBc2GnggC6m86bAfKlUhq3e5It4CiqxlWo8WmL8z1Ygb iwaf4esIJntgkEPaHq3AGGDWEzZCeFEz5rSZiRPYcKyTE/Ow54W0M6DEpR7jw1b36FVm 58Tw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyt+1/utfyDVaoRfnvN8QmwFRXticeWGXhAk7gUFaVNwPa3bXQH DouLXUboIUhYNCSMfppIKHl+JcRkmTRDdUWCDELozPiL128hZVMtoLWGfA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHenbE87wBGwchXI8ByFO/f/frhunrea1dcOHV0ic9SbeKewVsOaDHwR6r8Hl8v9Cq/S01Fm1RExkwHYshU2J4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:454:b0:41c:d9e7:7782 with SMTP id o20-20020a05622a045400b0041cd9e77782mr12870707qtx.68.1701014212272; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 07:56:52 -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> <CAJU8_nUmuxZc8USDTZPJ-nQ05K3joYcXgVsExZBo6GDioWW4mg@mail.gmail.com> <458732.1701012011@dyas>
In-Reply-To: <458732.1701012011@dyas>
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 09:56:40 -0600
Message-ID: <CACMsEX9N93=Fzc+Mkdtc4xYWcWCYgKRg-juXXbp3roacwYDc3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e17328060b103b70"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6wGcko-TF_SGaO9FY3sBFfVNBeA>
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: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:56:57 -0000

It may have gotten overshadowed in the thread, Jeremy did situational
testing of adjusting preferences, also taking HE into account with a
browser:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/j6nMq6xSZfWH4SyPw4vciB_vYgo/

All seems to behave as expected. If there is other testing that folks would
like to see, please let us know.

nb

On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 9:20 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Kyle Rose <krose=40krose.org@dmarc.ietf.org> 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
>
> But, you as an operator, would be deleting those announcements based upon
> your well configured BCP38.  So, it's really is entirely under your
> control,
> which I agree with you: is a better.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>