IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: there should be a ULA prefix?? [was: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios]

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 28 February 2019 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 F02CC1279E6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 wC4iP-ZQc-Ni for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com (mail-wr1-f44.google.com [209.85.221.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF19D129284 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id f14so20015238wrg.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rbB/x9RB2UBFcbxyDOKYO8O7XAUYaOOdJrmGncjVFtA=; b=Eo2BrHyqxnYwbzsazS0WPgIfrSK/MrTZq+hInWD0Xj1zEolEX7LhRbYYF2yirEv/oP +QpZ169W5q/DxlkXL1u5t62ZHAYQU48eCClS+wm4RiGTFfleFw4xL30mmihHCu/jkLvQ cq8QV7fWliSpIugB48UJ20TDjMhLmvrJnOszWZahDlzO8EGw8jVafnP6EucirXsnhTxV 9VbhH5VKVULEzri8nZ/hNZJVgazhKmxe14YDmANPBWlU3TtIq5lgupIoTKOxpgAQTdl4 F154ebNVyoJE1kGkz9Hrv6kCKJJM2U7C+MLp7S2fLtmt+n5xjZ27a7p1WOKytXDYqYSf hYJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1y1dbGJJhNxeaKgWnkZe8KCWSFqmHwJg+eygr247/crSHAb// jlCzpCvBg9iydKRNuAmkxFc4KFopSVC6R1WaVSg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxBbxZhKLAzskbn79h00znfNEs0B9IXmM/EDixH8ARhUxNCgrXaumPg0HtBAG18GnqvYLoaml8e+x9MdTGqMts=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f103:: with SMTP id r3mr4550358wro.50.1551313461680; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com> <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com> <CAO42Z2z9-48Gbb_Exf+oWUqDO=axSLpZBtqeDcxkAoFq5OziGw@mail.gmail.com> <CALx6S3624hnGauG1HaSWPMvQw0t2Q5R3gb8W4R8w3kuK7dcrWQ@mail.gmail.com> <1F07F2BB-2F37-4D12-9731-7892DF4E3D88@consulintel.es> <0a582916-af14-bd82-a4cd-002a36f8830b@huitema.net> <67515a73-26a5-3ed0-da88-1a4ce64550d3@foobar.org> <360afa02-cf23-375c-4876-780d3c2aa5ac@gont.com.ar> <CAHL_VyD34V=TRcsCp0DOO9HJNHyy5xkiMQ_cZoBa7zTE4fe5OA@mail.gmail.com> <ead01e0a-9211-7944-88d6-ae8d037c03a8@si6networks.com> <FB8B77EE-CC16-4418-BB5E-D44EE66D6B72@jisc.ac.uk> <899A1249-D3D9-4824-8B2E-7E950FBB316A@jisc.ac.uk> <m1gya2p-0000HVC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9b7ba4df-41df-2c03-ddca-e15289075bff@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2xq1GNdkopJRwaq=V0UnVGzky7yfCuOy-8mQgHKUw=y1w@mail.gmail.com> <e44c03a5-64b7-973a-0c03-503f58bb122e@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yu6cANMqJ-NnC0OwguVFizLVVz-oarfD88OwRL-+40JQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2yu6cANMqJ-NnC0OwguVFizLVVz-oarfD88OwRL-+40JQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeZhd7Re-GCQoGpebt-kBLjU4j1rxSSzogAoHioOUJy2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: there should be a ULA prefix?? [was: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios]
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d19f650582e94f47"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Q_hZvfyel0mGySSuL_0jir4Er8o>
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:24:26 -0000

At Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:28:23 +1100,
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >>> Some time in the past, the thinking changed and now there should be
a
> > ULA
> > >>> prefix in addition to any global prefixes.
> > >>
> > >> Really? Where do you think that is stated?
> > >>
> > >> I happen to run my CPE with ULA enabled, but I'm not aware of any
> > >> recommendation to do so.
> > >>
> > >
> > > RFC7084. Was also in its ancestor.
> >
> > Not so. All it says is:
> >
> >    ULA-1:  The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be capable of generating a ULA
> >            prefix [RFC4193].
>
> That could be interpreted to mean if it is capable of generating a ULA
then
> it should generate and announce one. It's probably a bit of ambiguity in
> what generate can mean - generate could mean generate without
> using/announcing it, but what would be the point of doing so?

FWIW, "SHOULD be capable of doing X" is clearly different from "SHOULD
be doing X" to me: the former means it SHOULD be implemented; the
latter means it SHOULD be (implemented and) enabled.  I often see
phrases like this in IETF documents and I always interpret them this
way without seeing any ambiguity.

So I agree with Brian here.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email