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

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Sat, 25 November 2023 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
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 54576C151099 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:57:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
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 sVzlP0nTzOfq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 4359BC15154A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-507e85ebf50so3285023e87.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:57:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; t=1700877421; x=1701482221; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PDKccvxI8wpMklocvM3MpT5d/ijLt/DBLtbQmTQ1xys=; b=OF0tJghUJfZkOh8r5GWexCRzrzl6MX6yoH5fGiFyAypwSOa9rXPj/WSkMlWYRKuDlP El9+rJYUXBe3wqKCOi4+PoG3nZICbFNnD49Mnh5tL8W6pVtSSsksUEnSbUD/0AjCtHjx /VxGmex+FiErmJLP9kDZX83+YzYf+pzLFcSn4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700877421; x=1701482221; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=PDKccvxI8wpMklocvM3MpT5d/ijLt/DBLtbQmTQ1xys=; b=DQgf9y5/9CTh7lhNh2/bjW0zufb/wh2iMw8/9/f46R0CoFYeXXKe+0ekbDcHqMciFx DLPrSMezNiJwGHeWTrjop5Op4lePYUCkTL1Ls7FyCO1uXEy5xafngKmlnn8CV7T7vm2m 3NgMWVltSKRsMKW89RfI9GxePmV1nHK32d+04f4M+75XhpyhEfgRigmjKE/Ko4h9M1CT r3Di+LNelYUKMJOVUsLPWxSBfigbkmzMzebRm2H4KWKZ8sCX46+vvmlce8ioL9MlQkel ChIVb9c2WdNvy+XNRYARtcQddJAPYvl2OWawKpl+RmnMsJ7hdN0u3UYCbL6h2jE31Qez 03Gw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxE1RQFBugAqmRwFdcZzTXE//W2Fluv1Q5Z8tJ/jj8h8tXxl3X+ dsEkBP7+dIwu7ph7bUdnKqDI6O8vByGdfw2TgUSjqg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGcHO4BsnNKFASdn0AV1HB5zQgJkZ8dnUEWgx0g2rLwpUpuDhz1wtPffD6ICcOxQSSHI5qZRY43KmM6iQTuheA=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4d11:0:b0:50a:71db:888 with SMTP id r17-20020ac24d11000000b0050a71db0888mr2564175lfi.17.1700877420924; Fri, 24 Nov 2023 17:57:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJU8_nV2QoGjZoegcUSXELqgeqW6OheTt32qq6YQ5XV0g5MPQw@mail.gmail.com> <10D22CA5-CD7A-471A-B4A9-21B77D16F5F7@employees.org> <CAJU8_nVQFvp_5ZnkByCvBeA7wFz9J5FVAeud2CD1Xd4UkyL_3Q@mail.gmail.com> <4202668E-EEBE-4FA6-9801-F2A9FC92CBD8@tiesel.net> <CAO42Z2y9g3ebZ2VuXDFSK71p3X2VMVQu2=h+sXSVhcfvvxn-Qg@mail.gmail.com> <CACMsEX8q7dmRAVXuOZFVS+z_hrks=n0ChBHR4Bz9gB9ryF0ZAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yFiKs09K-O+SxDytLst_Uu4MAae65PTgz3URLnc5MnQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAE=N4xcFU+87wXy8NkHuO7rZ-T7Z7VmTkfcYFJH3PAJ+8+NPww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWEAwzEw-2RpYxyf-i8x_0t8AS5O4GQ8=uB0GGYDFB5jA@mail.gmail.com> <a24c332c-e949-32cc-f660-a4434aab4eef@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUmuxZc8USDTZPJ-nQ05K3joYcXgVsExZBo6GDioWW4mg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mNOtwZvqF7TQxJZiq_Kn8R2a94tZTHDwAei4kBBY1pyQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mNOtwZvqF7TQxJZiq_Kn8R2a94tZTHDwAei4kBBY1pyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 20:56:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nUjTm8RZq3RHXuGSadHAkSNOn97yaKO65+xhA29eCqCAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007b25f7060af062c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/EPvWDszuti4NDxh-954hQ-ihl8Q>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability
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: Sat, 25 Nov 2023 01:57:07 -0000

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 8:36 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

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

"This" = ?

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 wasn't talking about ULA->GUA, which is depreferenced via the label
difference. I was talking about whether to prefer ULA->ULA over GUA->GUA or
vice versa, and how preferring ULA->ULA might cause problems when the
destination ULA is unreachable (surely via misconfiguration of one sort or
another).

Kyle