IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 12 April 2024 12:19 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 B5630C14F6B5 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 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_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irzz6oFzGBiM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A093C14F6BA for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A3F3898B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5J0VUYgUhRrO for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE5A38988 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1712924350; bh=k5FsSpel4X7qZUpcgk9o8cD4MSSGL+FwIdDuVrgeR5s=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=kn6IE5Q2UjlxrFsvfdJ83mW6MXnm2j16opyIl3Znzdv4lwiC2XmLz0HVjANEX+Lqd jU2nA/L3Q9fDfN9g/zViDBTxKaK0Y9pT85rupP1tXdiqKdLzrL4Pb/ls/EURcTFHIL UG7pMwjv0WuqEw0LFcxmFjT54EETBeY9IPbM+KmRkqRjJSDlTeUr9HQ6eacomo/V8k KTzXPzEcsBOTrPpNH20jwz/lily76a3agg1OjFBfjCDs+Ups7lpa/ajd+1m75nL1ld bD5lqVmNBka6FtYGsN92zFHWsVhcndO6jtZAzgrtQXPjWepdaUeIO0cDIN55VJCwLh QMuIVubBZeUcA==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B0A11F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0CS9=mHTMPQf6BHfkhEUGEbVdcUBeQpE=DhUqVj4=N1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6A5E5F35-B35F-4358-8EE1-3BD82329141E@jisc.ac.uk> <6FBC1B5A-BF28-4B05-B2B2-A60DA4707755@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1m-Ye8vfOVnsPesFshLMV5QuVoxWqM=HVZiJ37zaBg6AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1NTvFj0zB0=+nnUKck7TBtwHFz2XoFkD1smx4yCuZohQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWyE5TqBTXB9wfSkn6refaqYNVN967YAtCp-0VMk-5qWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mqszfafMMY=54ezpoRymoy=bBjeVnWzxj6A27smR1eig@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWDDfwWEoahU4dqTEh3_HCq2UfpkFjefnXohb+5DAbjew@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nTJ1sDEQrn1iNUbvreu5bt0BweWgX7iOw6fmPgNBvUqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWsg=eGxu59akfB0+pOTJ-TYud-a_wGhtgnpp1RizVhrw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nbTuSH4GGrimFAxe3YqTLbhiTX5KVjYsw+JRjoadzzrw@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau36qjfT5YCPWAhko-RKjj3Cqeo-r9csM0fOadcdehvhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kTv189Binap2r6PT-w2VbW31KGibSf_iPGPnnQ90CdYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0CS9=mHTMPQf6BHfkhEUGEbVdcUBeQpE=DhUqVj4=N1w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
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 Apr 2024 08:19:10 -0400
Message-ID: <29313.1712924350@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Mw9vgP1y64boJsV7WoTccFlYNQM>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:19:17 -0000

David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > I believe that requiring a preference for known-local ULAs, with GUA and
    > IPv4 preferred over other ULAs, is the robust solution to the leakage of
    > local naming and addressing into the global scope that we need.

+1

I am trying to stay out of this thread, because I think we are way beyond the
rough consensys state.  The views are clear from each person.
I don't believe that the above policy will be a problem for embeddable
operating systems; *nux will actually the biggest challenge with it.

    > As for your VPN example, if the VPN uses ULA, then you would expect the
    > host will have an address from the VPN and would be a known-local ULA, and
    > this heuristic will work as intended.

And, as soon as communication with the ULA is attempted, the VPN will engage.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email