Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-04.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 28 November 2023 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 6CF81C14CF1B; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:35:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.196 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=gmail.com
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 0Q2gs9lUwsms; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 AC961C14CEFE; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6cd8579096eso2129084b3a.0; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:34:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1701146098; x=1701750898; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6w+WIlh4aZnUIr0/N57PORAr0Yd8rnDjY4LVJCG9Ksg=; b=JmrP3S3ivNFkGBc5H/Y7shthSEA1rr5FfaPmNwKxj4eMtXLCDQELj5HYNdmlK593nf zQN9G5lMzINCTuhaKg4KYI3n7bHERYctIM7KpUg+KGTAHYvQzC4RV7LMZh2IgbVuaUqU zNWColfIS82K8zdaVqsZTZFTAE8eFRE5oPvvag83JPt1jkIAeLxPKjGOt3UtS5JL6B5k fnKCnBczJIcD5Abq8B3SA+FiUIS++ja3rg7yKQNWR5t7xIYa3Ozvl/P68mKylg9Uedwu APAqi9zNM9diFzg6zEgfAygg3YxVg+NKPvFo3ai03szcmmTdMfRvF9u1gyglfYSajUXQ Nvew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1701146098; x=1701750898; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6w+WIlh4aZnUIr0/N57PORAr0Yd8rnDjY4LVJCG9Ksg=; b=Extwg1c08InmHy8z0VSzbMT75hji39WHP+yzxMPS8l5tn/p0zMGGrknjlc9ezE6GPN af4tg3vp7DmDVsRvlCS7G8sLG6Q9VGd+XCcjfsQ2ZU6vJdHSGBFTDdEdvD2NvF3CueQI CzhDvLdORIQCRiACnnbPfEEzaDshsWalcWQZq7DhwAk82/4Jbfx+tRMvav5vbzO5wbC6 PnMbUF52uBxr2Nn5tdt7AYrpq1KRUSG4xqDj4S55nL5AY7dDXmLZl/JxeoVIm6Eb/GpU r1sGczaVS4LT7A7hBCMkMvWyXyYQu11pGzD5b+c8D+LP6B0vnD9E2JR/ihA0Q37Af3of Jw4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw1C/0+wz3buAKoU7X0xlJ4wCndUSpMTQkeccguWLsQjv8PMRUo TKxBxLrhk8mNA4CPvkAZxS8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF/+A8f8i78iGQgjlnyY+zI1vszwOq8ibFPTsm0ucKbN9zjPefD5n8PdBd29mOEpHcSJZfayg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:3815:b0:17b:426f:829 with SMTP id yi21-20020a056a21381500b0017b426f0829mr13421111pzb.37.1701146097835; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:34:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ij30-20020a170902ab5e00b001cc3a6813f8sm9352976plb.154.2023.11.27.20.34.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:34:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <88eebdf2-5fd3-70d6-99f8-855371cb651d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:34:53 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <170059183545.4282.16453796503536671445@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACMsEX_RhsLq1eX5d6m0w93zjLdTNOmuK1-FqVvN3DRCoQkpVQ@mail.gmail.com> <3C840B68-1C34-44C9-9803-7C9468AC98C8@jisc.ac.uk> <CAO42Z2zQORo08vFV34BAKKu+vK6t8GnHLLTSiBUsERNK0zHV8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJgLMKuk+_GhymY3cEJvTW+UC=Eo+xtC3dhPVhNkviT1Qg2v4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nV4fdXHxGY2zEjW5PLeLjJ6YfU58tJ+PKt8PHQbCfKr-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xYJsZ+VS0bm6C-idXDOBTdavb6NTAnNbx9SCRfbmgvpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nXFisr+hYBPvADkuWPZtKbpcAz7Pd_F4ZJ40=+eBPQR9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yst7zJKeznwywews9it=yCEQs6RNPPCLM8a4LwKdogJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACMsEX_mViOUfkGhY=1JgipnnumJbDKUBxFoMy35sEsrtZHfzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xFAnUtiOKGDaNGGdXrnt0yw4i+rY68hEG8PROttWwU_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xFAnUtiOKGDaNGGdXrnt0yw4i+rY68hEG8PROttWwU_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PtSCgh9O2Nc9rapbhietVBmWLEU>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-04.txt
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 04:35:02 -0000

On 28-Nov-23 12:57, Mark Smith wrote:

> I don't entirely understand why ULAs ended up with a global scope,

Because:

a) the site-local virtual experiment showed that "site scope" was a badly defined concept;

b) they aren't link-local;

c) therefore "global" scope was the only option.

In practice all "global" means is "not link-local" or alternatively "routeable" or "forwardable".

The mess was somewhat clarified by RFC 8190 (part of BCP 153) defining "globally reachable": https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8190.html#section-2.1

     Brian