Re: RFC6724-bis?
Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net> Tue, 20 September 2022 23:40 UTC
Return-Path: <buraglio@es.net>
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 8FEB5C14CE38 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=es.net
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 qj9QGN83c9Fy for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (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 AFD25C14CF03 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id e17so6173868edc.5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=es.net; s=esnet-google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Yzo6p0ORjFO0yXOPmHlfJeg3U8ezS5H3TrvuFrT6Glg=; b=ksePxWmQ5gB21yKi1VuzypGZUhItVbWY2jX3BytP257nfpLs02a0XHQMkYbO3Ca2k9 q6OdmCxdXJKURx2H90NODFsWnYwT6aSrybv8m5CzWrTh/ntYcYg0tmAQ0mcHTXZqtP8P 2ka6YfLv0YjDjGiLi2aBBDxQDKlZj/O1D5wIhalcSX+hOUzpnpjBQcjX7sBnRltRUHd3 92XHlmAb1I0Br+hBUDlWNbkZpokWPEMngLnDSGkW4euA/dW+Th8HXVD6w5k0BF8x0fiq jUxnp9BSo4gFpGrwm+wFbkzbjvHSiiz/56PZrq2ROzs0nQAQb3nU7dUhpqb5ngQo4g8f ITQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Yzo6p0ORjFO0yXOPmHlfJeg3U8ezS5H3TrvuFrT6Glg=; b=KHBDRVS9SjyhbCRb2GVEUrwryt3b7xIODrByVmRiV/Ch7dTBcLYDzxL6K1m1JNWzWv r4bpqfZDS4taQedjrh1U4FyOvgTBo4U7bogzeFu2OnBkmuZthnYqlQr7y390+DHBZyDN HrGovmlzXRpGXajMdERyZDlSZ7JhYRGVdDrh1T8dkt19X46TluuVtAwWtOGZjcXhSRrU danRfQ9JRqd/GEHi4Gi50a+pa2pJtVhd4sxCAly6HHXLjFGw+H4pVHAWSKoIZVll1ITM EOLNJowg/6XvM4ow2CUGBvPacR9Kb95FLdfEOHrSTtgN+ywsgSehXsNcLMBy2uJ9eKN2 b89A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3Fk86Xwmx/iRPA7E+kcH3zO3rEHb/2dsaHHlVQaUNAG1h+9l4M FMWKyLjnI/Z3hql85qCzGPEspEaDoT5cD8loPvPVRS1TRF1dDzjAZUGS2ZdC173tdSd+3pPK0Pp LdHSL5SB307k+5NYPb0/hTZ2BYG15yZwAxdSS5YDz8YjWcVSetMFdCULRLXxYcucFueaZNHDRn+ vxlhYU00A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM59i8uppp8YNUyrwUcWgd9l8rIb3xhEUj3Z6m7pqsrirFCkVljLHVFDqlZgkfz7tPtf5ShQFl/Z8VqokGwf8os=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:254f:b0:452:be91:c0d3 with SMTP id l15-20020a056402254f00b00452be91c0d3mr22348647edb.314.1663717210624; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <66892DC8-6DA4-4DC8-85B0-E1E1647CD9F7@gmail.com> <f3b80447394f4eb8b06cc992fde3db6c@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3b80447394f4eb8b06cc992fde3db6c@huawei.com>
Reply-To: buraglio@es.net
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 01:39:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM5+tA_zovZtQWs28a8Jnet3-XJFBquq1oEOOp=SH=W7inrUBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC6724-bis?
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Tim Chown <tjc.ietf@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000590dc005e9245974"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QblauONucKYBHl0pCj_8A1xkiJ8>
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, 20 Sep 2022 23:40:16 -0000
Operationally, I would discourage the scripting approach. As noted in the draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-00 one of the more difficult or impossible problems are the OT hardware and embedded devices with no mechanism for adjusting preferences. If that were written in as an internally executed, required function, then perhaps it has some more broad viability. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 6:32 PM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard= 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > What if legalize Brian's script: > As soon as the new ULA PIO (/64) is received > The host should automatically insert /48 derived out of it into the policy > table > With the precedence (45?) and label (6?) above IPv4 and default but below > GUA. > The old FC/7 could be kept as it is (3/13). > It needs a little more thinking about what to do if many different ULAs > (/48) is detected. > Probably, priority and label could be the same (45/6?) for all specific > ULAs. > > It would give good compatibility to the old implementation > Because it is what is needed to do manually now to have ULA operational. > The proposal is just automation. > Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 7:07 PM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RFC6724-bis? > > Hi, > > As an author of RFC6724 I’ve had the discussions about a possible update > of RFC6724 brought to my attention. > > An example thread over on v6ops is > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/W6HjHc11JX364soq3t3gFMHSawE/, > but there are others. > > Nick Buraglio has documented the problem in draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-00. The > short of it is that RFC1918 IPv4 addresses may be preferred to IPv6 ULAs in > certain circumstances, which I would agree is not desired behaviour. > > There are a few ways we might look to address this. There is a proposal > from Nick (not yet published outside a git repo) to address it by changing > wording in section 2.1, with a couple of MAYs becoming MUSTs, and adding an > extra explaining paragraph. This basically firms up the requirement to > follow 6.10 on adding an extra precedence line for local ULA prefix(es). > > Now, that may or may not be the preferred solution of the WG, but I think > there’s a few questions to consider: > > 1. Is there agreement we should address the problem? I’d assume so > because Nick's problem draft was adopted by v6ops. > > 2. If so, is 6man the place to do it? I think it has to be. RFC6724 was > born here. > > 3. How do we determine the best solution to the problem? I suspect there > are nuances in play that will make a one size fit all ’simple’ fix tricky, > but I look forward to the discussion. Nick has one proposal that counts to > a couple of word changes and an extra paragraph, which I’d encourage him to > share here, but there are other approaches proposed on v6ops. I think > either way, it will require some update to or for RFC6724. > > 4. Does this work warrant a full -bis or would a separate RFC that updates > 6724 be better? A separate Updating draft might better highlight the issue > to implementors. But then RFC6724 is now ten years old, and RFC3484 which > it replaced was nine years before that. > > 5. If we choose to open up a full -bis, are there any other worms in this > can? I have a feeling also here I know the likely answer…. > > Anyway, over to the WG… thoughts? > > Tim > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ---- nb
- RFC6724-bis? Tim Chown
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Tim Chown
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Bob Hinden
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Mark Smith
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Mark Smith
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Nick Buraglio
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Mark Smith
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ted Lemon
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Mark Smith
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Timothy Winters
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Nick Buraglio
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson