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 Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 3:17 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 13-Feb-21 22:19, Fernando Gont wrote:
> ...
> > Well, whether we call it out or not, as per RFC4007:
> >
> >                scope(LL) < scope(ULA) < scope(GUA)
>
> And there's the fallacy. This inequality only makes sense if reachability
> is strictly a matter of concentric circles. It isn't. Nice math, but not
> reality.
>
> Slide 4 of https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/scope6.pdf
>
>    Brian
>

I think I'm hearing,

1. Rewrite RFC4007 to only discuss zone indexes for the Link-Local address
on an interface, maybe rename then too. Junk the rest, it only confuses
things.

2. Rewrite RFC4291 to only refer to Link Scope (for Link-Local Addresses
and the Loop-Back Address) and Global Scope for all other Unicast addresses
except the unspecified address, eliminate all inference to other unicast
scopes and the size of scopes. All uniqueness for Link-Local address comes
from IID uniqueness provided by DAD, and there should be no discussion of
uniqueness regarding Global Scope in RFC4291, it is only discussed in
RFC4007. Also, eliminate the discussion of IID scope. Leaving Multicast
scope alone.

However, unless we can agree on how to deal with the 64-bit boundary, or
not to touch it, touching RFC4291 will only end in flames.

Is it possible to do anything with RFC4007 without ending in flames?

-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================