Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Happy St Nicholas Day: Re-Launching the IPv6 ULA registry

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Bert,
On 10-Dec-20 10:33, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>> On 10-Dec-20 01:51, Philip Homburg wrote:
> fc00::/8 prefix that has been discussed before as centrally managed.
>>>
>>> Deciding on how to set up a registry is more something for the RIR
>>> communities.
>>
>> That's only true for address space that IANA has released to the RIRs.
> That is not the case for fc00::/7, which remains under IETF control.
> 
> Yes, but in complete fairness, in principle, this could happen, and would be in compliance with RFC 4193:

Yes, the IETF could decide to standardise some form of ULA-C, and if so
could decide to ask IANA to create a registry, which would very likely
be done in consultation with the RIRs. But none of that has happened,
and I haven't seen a convincing case that the IETF, and the IANA, and
the RIRs, should spend resources on it.

Meanwhile, if there's a pro bono, voluntary and non-authoritative
ULA registry I have no problem with that, but it doesn't require
any IETF action, any more than the old sixxs registry did.

Regards
    Brian
> 
> ----------------
> 3.1.  Format
> 
>    The Local IPv6 addresses are created using a pseudo-randomly
>    allocated global ID.  They have the following format:
> 
>       | 7 bits |1|  40 bits   |  16 bits  |          64 bits           |
>       +--------+-+------------+-----------+----------------------------+
>       | Prefix |L| Global ID  | Subnet ID |        Interface ID        |
>       +--------+-+------------+-----------+----------------------------+
> 
>    Where:
> 
>       Prefix            FC00::/7 prefix to identify Local IPv6 unicast
>                         addresses.
> 
>       L                 Set to 1 if the prefix is locally assigned.
>                         Set to 0 may be defined in the future.  See
>                         Section 3.2 for additional information.
> ------------------
> 
> What most people, myself included, have been talking about is ULAs in which the L bit is set to 1. Which is, fd00::/8. Aside from Fernando's admission of having set the L bit to 0 (tsk tsk), Nico and Ungleich are talking about this "future use" of not-locally-assigned ULAs, fc00::/8. Presumably, not-locally-assigned would mean, globally assigned?
> 
> Are we saying that RFC 4193 needs an update, and that the meaning of the L bit has changed?
> 
> Bert
> 
>