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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 3F9A83A17D4; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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=boeing.com
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 E0ooAZvhAUXO; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462893A17D8; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 11IKBVCd023510; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:11:33 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1613679093; bh=JKD/azXHRtsrZMrne2/R4iLkboS7avbuEXtEHEDedyE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=KKoc/sg/kre/RZfyf6umMOJVFEyMP/71xP92C3VFuV1/pk0FxzX44+mlqozzmyor1 bkkmVFtURja/UHjKFnwTx1KAxSP6TvpKL1PFQhUnIJexpnc9kENEpwJYMzSg5riq7X HjDgy8B/Wh67fmDeEGW8vth67qrOI/N8r53GB+KyL029pI2BTWIUGQ/jZo1aQTOPlV 5KhjEw/dSAe3t/HTpen94K/4tlscPEzjiuCg8xmrPR6mdfHTip6LVdDg852ADVI+Xb 3rH3RY+v5f2E7Be3WFvxYnojpp/pkJrW/Jl9yDs0gaWpEShByARwchQCEDwx4dVd4N LRAHVnJ6mCwkg==
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.112]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 11IKBJA3023360 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:11:20 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.109) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:18 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::7897:2974:6af3:208e]) by XCH16-07-07.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::7897:2974:6af3:208e%6]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.002; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:11:18 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <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)
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
Thread-Index: AdcGMaM6acedU7SNQiCzLZMGBWzPZQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:11:18 +0000
Message-ID: <a5b9b8566ce446d3a5e5dcc9ca2fbac2@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 6CF0AFA809C31FD7C565E8223B71A487B8AC6A2B9F05EC8CB56133CD60088B1E2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/FiElq7ZNyaY9EAr_hN5vydAfuU4>
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 20:11:40 -0000

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>rg>; 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
> 
> 
>