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 20:40 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 EFE223A1835 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:40:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 8BC9hTkP6XBp for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:40:13 -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 CDEF03A1834 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:40:11 -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 11IKe9Va018861; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:40:10 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1613680810; bh=tlh7fGmwrlg2Onq4hpCb56vSNoFV3JbD3eTlhS2NZIE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=OvTeMKkx8TZh4wck2qyUPl9sg8DL2znKi41XYSDzR7eQAys+giti8PGSsXtAt+iee e3wAOtOjX6yUpF7OeWRsoXdcWQiAxsEVarw5G85uJAuGyuYW6NqQI6OdI3afqffCIC ByPiiyZnOSvVroiZ/snFgPAZG1mw2/c4jVC1P1TD1z2431AJwZ9gVxlrNUjDElgRIF 5dh6gu4H/KK9jxj+A0IhyCuJEfVLahSfiCfifyXSka+V/i4lVX0Ieh+f4olFKisopY ty19ehH8co5pBIQRHTVCTjmadaReNuZ/xcQw6f5NzUY/erghXcXTT+n+tGDyYS22oN 3zJp0M5Hr1kbA==
Received: from XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-11.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.113]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 11IKdu5C018347 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:39:56 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:39:55 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.002; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:39:55 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@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: AdcGNYuqWUkqHrN5Tc2Y2M8GVJDB4Q==
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:39:54 +0000
Message-ID: <ac986d8021b14601b04f53ade5825b4a@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: 53B77E6C04F861D85B493AA99154562535D78E23066AF234C427F7ADE4F2200D2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JHILqfZ7_dbYwsf2EA1AVIeD-mc>
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 20:40:15 -0000

Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:27 PM
> To: ipv6@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 19-Feb-21 09:11, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Therefore, presumably, they are only statistically unique, even though
> there are 100 pseudo-random bits. ULAs on steroids.

4 bits are used to encode the cryptographic algorithm type, so there are
really 96 pseudo-random bits. But, yes that means they are statistically
unique and like ULAs on steroids.

I know the HIP people have done a lot of thinking about the uniqueness
of HITS, and I am probably grossly under-representing all of the aspects
they have considered by what I am saying here. But, I do see a use case.

Fred
 
>    Brian
> 
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------