IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update might break current ULA+IPv4 hostnames

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 12 November 2023 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 4908CC16F40D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 00:43:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 eZxgZC9nuJPX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 00:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 9C125C16F403 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 00:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [213.235.133.39]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B51361F427; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:43:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62CA3A1BCE; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 09:33:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6095AA1BB0; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 09:33:54 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAKD1Yr1z2x8iKXYQtPVifj-XkP7MeRq=NWe0gdWBGC1aS_j0Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKD1Yr2uD+XE+HA6vs3BfEchpWr5H2NEeoXLrXm7-U9_ckw1sA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2Nw21wUm-mjxq3bnYczPJbApVhcZZ6oie+HiB4yvr_PQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1z2x8iKXYQtPVifj-XkP7MeRq=NWe0gdWBGC1aS_j0Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> message dated "Sat, 11 Nov 2023 10:56:34 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 09:33:54 +0100
Message-ID: <3808658.1699778034@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/A_LjPzvVXq-JGVXTIdEbqR4SPpg>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update might break current ULA+IPv4 hostnames
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, 12 Nov 2023 08:43:59 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > Why is is a misconfiguration to put a ULA AAAA record in the DNS?
    > Because
    > it is never preferred over anything, adding it won't break anything, and it
    > will work on IPv6-only networks when global IPv6 connectivity is down. I
    > could totally see someone doing the following:

    > server.smallcompany.com AAAA fd73:4899:2a7f:a93a::53
    > server.smallcompany.com AAAA 2001:db8:4923::1
    > server.smallcompany.com A 192.0.2.1

    > This would work well today. The server would be reached:

+1

    > People might well have done this today because it works for them. If we
    > change the rules as proposed in this draft, it will stop working for any
    > home network that has a ULA and IPv4, but no IPv6 (and there are lots of
    > these).

I thought that adding/bumping the ULA preference for the /48 of the /64 seen
onlink was a good idea.  Are we no longer considering that?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status