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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 6:17 PM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 14/2/21 19:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 15-Feb-21 10:54, Fernando Gont wrote:
> ...
> > Although there is a high probability of some ULA prefixes somewhere
> > being equal, the probability of your ULA prefix being equal to your
> > next-door neighbour's is extremely small.
>
> Doesn't it follow from that that they are intended for some sort of
> org-local, site-local, or admin-defined scope, rather than global?
>
> (same can be said about other prefixes noted by David)


They are intended for local-use within the Global Scope this is clearly
stated RFC4193, as well as the blocks I talked about.

> There's no equivalent statement that can be made for RFC 1918 addresses,
> > nor for the deprecated IPv6 Site Local addresses.
> >
> > BTW, RFC 4193 seems very clear on this to me:
>
> Agreed on this.
>
> The question is how RFC4193 fits in RFC4007.
>

All I think we really need to do is qualify the uniqueness with
reachability in RFC4007, which is consistent with RFC4193.

Something like, "uniquely identifying interfaces anywhere reachable on the
Internet", works for me.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================