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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 13 February 2021 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E1D223A0BDE; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 19:55:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 30PBy_BYtGvv; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 19:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C4E3A0BDC; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 19:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B8C38A94; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:59:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TEfOQEgAhN4x; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:59:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5511F38A92; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:59:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED6B320; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:55:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 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)
In-Reply-To: <b9972eb4-b4db-e82d-12ec-1cfcc75a9e45@gmail.com>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <F4E00812-E366-4520-AE17-7BB46E28D575@gmail.com> <b2e51a89-e8a7-9ddb-643d-63a98569b03c@si6networks.com> <CB9EA5F4-A241-46A4-A371-B2A1BFB8C72F@fugue.com> <dff93a2e-f4f8-01c9-ce88-c2dbb20a04f1@si6networks.com> <759637FF-77C7-41EA-8671-73988AD48873@fugue.com> <9877D352-E9BB-453B-A676-D2B5C546C1C2@gmail.com> <11035C3E-BA75-4B9D-A047-B2AA1DE23BEA@fugue.com> <b3f1c53f-c22d-c9fb-6094-9a15d79fcd43@si6networks.com> <b9972eb4-b4db-e82d-12ec-1cfcc75a9e45@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:55:41 -0500
Message-ID: <6488.1613188541@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/LNGJ7KXnY6KpUV1eouiCxta2cKI>
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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 03:55:45 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    > ULAs SHOULD be treated exactly like GUAs for all practical purposes
    > (including using a default router for them), with the exception that
    > they MUST be filtered by border routers at a domain boundary that is
    > defined administratively. The only extra requirement is that ULA
    > prefixes MUST be unique within that domain boundary. That's all, I
    > think.

But, that's pretty much always just BCP38, right?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide