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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I thought we’d decided that this was a misconfiguration and hence not a
problem we need to solve.

Regarding ULA->GUA I think we need to be careful to say that this is less
preferable than GUA->GUA or 1918->GUAv4, not that it is always wrong or
requires NPT. What is the case where, when ULA->GUA is the only option, we
are better off not trying it?

I know we’ve been around before on the second point and I thought what I
just said was what we intended, but I keep seeing “only with NPT” repeated
and I would really appreciate it if we could get on the same page.

Op vr 24 nov 2023 om 19:34 schreef Kyle Rose <krose=
[e-mail]>

> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 7:22 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>