IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sat, 17 March 2012 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
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 6736121E8026 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.128
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aUJ3rjzLJ-Ta for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A33F21E800F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9258; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331948230; x=1333157830; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=mqOCrnVWXQ3V2n/StjEYwKeTGCoAPdJPHHhW1d9Jy1A=; b=PnKzdFrlATwiSKliUKOIo3AL07k0QZAgtp8P/pSzIYcvok32ao22grnl 3FJrcHG6hxfn+NHW17Sj6EZaLIbtX6Etfnhrz9YFOu7fXfPjmN4XNdr3s H2B+Qvv5fcRRtc8sau43FZLseN0GZzLGbBeeaBK93OBC8+CXuRt5C1r1/ E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAAXqY0+tJXHB/2dsb2JhbABCgkazeYEHggkBAQEEEgEJEQNJDAQCAQgOAwQBAQsGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHaJpZnyOQFmMEiFabT4FogwQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,601,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="64181232"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Mar 2012 01:37:08 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2H1b8HE027769; Sat, 17 Mar 2012 01:37:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:08 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD03DE.77744378"
Subject: RE: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:08 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3043A22C2@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFtBC=8=__8GdtExB8oYgA7pOfjxNfXCLzuOXz7_UKCPhwjenw@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]
Thread-Index: Ac0D1Q6ZSJeeXn6lS+egM5tNTGvddgACCeug
References: <4EB3F3D6.4090302@innovationslab.net><CAC1-dtnas++ahkBmpdyq7DbyAEg0W6bZY16qGzKmsP10vC39FQ@mail.gmail.com><4EEA3D20.7020603@innovationslab.net><CAKFn1SFvs0PzBXtEWWo814Oe5TJmbQEJBm5FeYJY5xzrr=KFSw@mail.gmail.com><4EEA5793.8080800@gmail.com><CAKFn1SHA-=cQ_=5rJVLVMvQYXoTL_D1dCR=uWZK-qFrcGp6P-w@mail.gmail.com><4EEA7AF8.2090508@gmail.com><CAC1-dtn9M8-9cPAmkhCiGV0Gi5+Gfs8GAssTOaA-ZFhyUY3feg@mail.gmail.com><9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3C3777@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com><9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B3EDB9E@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com><E6E7EE34-8244-40B6-84C1-C79E8BDE7921@nttv6.net><4F3ABFBA.8060605@gmail.com><29EBA88D-BDB1-464C-915F-B9063578DC51@nttv6.net><9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B45BB08@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com><C8827D58-5C69-4A44-B9CE-86791466814E@nttv6.net><4F63896E.10607@gmail.com> <CAFtBC=8=__8GdtExB8oYgA7pOfjxNfXCLzuOXz7_UKCPhwjenw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Arifumi Matsumoto <a@arifumi.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2012 01:37:08.0789 (UTC) FILETIME=[779B1E50:01CD03DE]
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ipv6@ietf.org, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Mar 2012 01:37:11 -0000

Arifumi,

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Arifumi Matsumoto
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:30 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: ULA scope [draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt]

 

>ULA-to-ULA will not be preferred, because ULAs are assigned lower

>precedence value in the policy table than those of IPv4 and IPv6

>global addresses.

 

I certainly understand if a host has an IPv4 and a ULA assigned, the
policy table prefers the IPv4 over the ULA otherwise Internet
connectivity for the host breaks down.  Likewise if the host has an IPv6
global and a ULA (which is also globally scoped), the IPv6 global is
preferred or Internet connectivity breaks down.   However, the issue
that Brian raised needs some thought.  The host has an IPv4, IPv6
global, and a ULA address. What if the packet destination is a ULA for
local communication, so why not use a longest-prefix match and use a ULA
source?  How does a longest-prefix match relate to the policy table?  Do
we have a mode where the policy table is the only entity used for source
address selection (SAS)? If yes, then how does the ULA to ULA
communication above work?

 

Best back,

 

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email