Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-07.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

This is a really contrived scenario, David. The scenario is that this
constrained device is now succeeding in communicating, and after this
change will fail, right? Or maybe it's not succeeding now, in which case
this change can only improve the situation.

The notion is that a constrained device on a very large enterprise network
with multiple ULA /48s will need to communicate with another device that is
on a ULA /48 that is not appearing in a PIO option in an RA. The case where
we'd have a setup like this in an enterprise environment is most likely
where there are multiple sites. So the likelihood that this constrained
device needs to communicate with a device at another site within the same
enterprise and has no GUA that would work for that communication seems
unlikely. I don't think we need to lose any sleep worrying about this.


On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:15 PM David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:37 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 06-Apr-24 07:15, David Farmer wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM Ted Lemon <[e-mail] <mailto:
>> [e-mail]>> wrote:
>> ...
>> >     If constrained devices already support the policy table, I do not
>> think this additional work is onerous.
>> >
>> >
>> > How would the "known-local" ULA prefixes be populated if not
>> dynamically updated from PIOs and RIOs?
>>
>> By the simple fact that a host actually has a ULA. This is the approach I
>> used in three different userland hacks:
>>
>> https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/enable_ula.py
>> https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/gai_wrap.py
>> https://github.com/becarpenter/getapr/
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>
> That will work for a single ULA network, but how does that work when you
> merge ULA networks, as discussed in section 4.2 of RFC4193? Do all hosts
> have to get an address from the other network(s) to know they are local?
> Somehow, the host needs to know the other ULA networks to treat it as
> local; otherwise, effectively, you can't merge ULA networks as RFC4193
> promises. I envision that coming from ROIs. If not ROIs, what?
>
> Thanks
> --
> ===============================================
> 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
> ===============================================
>