Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Thu, 18 February 2021 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 4F4403A198A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UxYmI14kVRc9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF0793A1983 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DhVMq2S4Nz9vCFQ for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:52:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5l71xzsihnVz for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:52:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f71.google.com (mail-ej1-f71.google.com [209.85.218.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DhVMp6RTjz9vCFP for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:52:22 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4DhVMp6RTjz9vCFP
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4DhVMp6RTjz9vCFP
Received: by mail-ej1-f71.google.com with SMTP id p1so1348684ejo.4 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:52:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NuSUUl/SCTfVjNUivU+v+Gg7JpjPN3qEQPcnrp2sP90=; b=eyWsHnM/PJocKZZmxNFT8uFJK+l8cHIs652ZN5i2Dp7XehHd69BfXzF1exJSWsJic0 0EBBTTLmPszvsqWGeIHYWDrZzYE+oK3/kx8FuEZqHbdvVB+f9CTXo9SWTm2uyCRKttdM 2sF6NthEy5qxc2eIfzigXExXyH7hGhUeSymQ1JWFlEQ7BJSs3G7bLFgxbpcPOTBos2Zh ei7I7sqMABVY2bpgYAP/g5/Cdryf5Ke/RlFxznppBjBeB5KVCnroWORL+j1vqjOhaYo+ +8fnBSmdwUOb6Nhl+67Mz9M0Ht7JTljCIM9BiOYA+dt812CEj27L1SuA1/ERsxgJjyiE hGxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NuSUUl/SCTfVjNUivU+v+Gg7JpjPN3qEQPcnrp2sP90=; b=W8mIFl+r/StiEtkhE5D1//w0AUCRki78uS3F/jTZ9xTjuVWxgU4O29yCQaKQwnaKqr fyIQzEsbML134Uzijh9WUNm3jIkH0PLD/UiSf1Np6bO1tkmTDedM2KL2+Oe16mcpi3mH SVjupmvnofcn7Cae3Jp9k/47SUIM0cGgHdWgw7oU1ACT0U0sdtPC+sh198MNLfcHHP9R OaiOSeigWMNzzl/156hXgYXtC1LNEs5q2PFMp0QDhN5tDOHdruyg9fOYgiJ/o5B6OkdR 2Owg+BE6/Rek8HG+v1Gk7JZT9u+aYVnbgfF+RidmCOhbvFM7iOM1LW5HBkK/LvAsyyVA jwoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531no39uOkULEPoVPrOIEV4+ANR5vh97ufN3ycyhdkhQML8Fz3G7 yYeCg6Xn77b9ryHjQPBb8iZbbmDpgta47WbupG9Xz0ZEqAHPm5VBRp8ZzHOPspNPMkSSPklDCwo w+nw30UKUQaW/D+EbhHTW57ld
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9856:: with SMTP id jj22mr5938002ejc.377.1613688741348; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:52:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7B1nz32X67PpHtn85RWP/1xbCvc/34o/eTfkHUUT0XwGabq6qlAQj9QO9MG8Qy3PlblHOoHFiJ+M95Iq1DEQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9856:: with SMTP id jj22mr5937975ejc.377.1613688740761; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:52:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a5b9b8566ce446d3a5e5dcc9ca2fbac2@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <a5b9b8566ce446d3a5e5dcc9ca2fbac2@boeing.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:52:04 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1xD21EpqrSXKHLzADPyjeWcwc=phHGSFP8cj6705O2BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002be92b05bba430f7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7C9APXwC4COLI1hL3ptb6pb6EZ0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:52:26 -0000

So let's be clear "IPv6 Address Scope" does not really have the general
meaning of the word "scope", it has a very specific meaning that in my
opinion boils down to are Zone Indexes or Identifiers needed to
uniquely identify them.

There is an argument to be made that ULAs should be Scoped, and if they
were globally reachable they would have to be Scoped. Nevertheless, they
are not globally reachable, and therefore so while it is possible that
there is another user of the same ULA prefix you are using. But, if you
follow the algorithm, in RFC4193 for allocation, the probability of that
duplicate user ever being reachable by you is very-very small.

So then do you want to use Zone Indexes or Identifiers with MANET? I doubt
it, personally, I believe that would effectively make MANET unusable by
most users.

Thanks

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:11 PM Templin (US), Fred L <
Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:

> Fernando,
>
> Then, let's have a scope for "MANET-local" scope which is what you get when
> you have a small collection of (probably) mobile nodes that form a network
> between themselves without the support of any infrastructure. I think HITs
> would make for fine IPv6 addresses within the MANET-local scope, but if the
> MANET ever connects to the global Internet then nodes will also want to get
> a *real* GUA (served by the infrastructure) to go along with the HIT they
> already have.
>
> Did I mention HITs are self-generated, and not delegated by some
> infrastructure node?
>
> Fred
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont@si6networks.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:53 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>om>; IPv6 Operations <
> v6ops@ietf.org>gt;; 6man@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd:
> New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-
> > ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
> >
> >
> > On 18/2/21 16:46, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > [...]
> > >>
> > >> Hi, Fred,
> > >>
> > >> On 18/2/21 16:11, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>>> On 18/2/21 14:37, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > >>>>> Another aspect I failed to mention is that the use of (H)HITs does
> not
> > >>>>> necessarily  mean that all aspects of the HIP protocol must be
> used. (H)HITs could be
> > >>>>> used with the AERO/OMNI services instead, for example.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Questions: Are these addresses globally-unique?
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes - global uniqueness is a key objective of (H)HIT. Aggregation is
> not within
> > >>> scope, however.
> > >>
> > >> If that's the case, then, according to RFC4007, they are global
> addresses.
> > >
> > > I actually think HITs are a bit of a gray area. According to RFC7343,
> they are
> > > formed from the GUA prefix 2001:20::/28 but the remaining bits
> following
> > > the ::/28 prefix are cryptographically generated and hence
> non-aggregatable.
> >
> > BUt according to RFC4007, the scope is defined by the topological span
> > where the address is meaningful....
> >
> >
> > > That means that there is no way to represent a group of them in the
> routing
> > > system using any other prefix length than /128.
> >
> > That's not a requirement when it comes to "scope".
> >
> >
> >
> > >> (I'd argue that if they cannot be aggregated, that's because they
> > >> resulting "addresses" are not really topologically-dependent, in which
> > >> case you might probably argue that they are not addresses in the first
> > >> place :-) )
> > >
> > > Not in terms of routing across the global Internet, no, because it
> would not
> > > scale to inject large numbers of /128's into the global Internet
> routing system.
> >
> > The thing is that if they don't represent a location in the network
> > topology, they don't seem to qualify as an address, anyway.
> >
> > An address is supposed to be a topologically-dependent identifier --
> > i.e., to convey information of location ("where?").
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Fernando Gont
> > SI6 Networks
> > e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================