IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 January 2021 05:22 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 702BE3A0418; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:22:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 r7CZBK4Dv6rO; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:22:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A0E63A0408; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F101D389AD; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 00:23:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q5XRtFHrXu5J; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 00:23:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950C4389AC; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 00:23:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DAF591; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 00:22:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
In-Reply-To: <8345b02d-4c26-d5d8-7d85-1e85f3b15642@si6networks.com>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2wR-3vbHi-NrBBMmCTNDq5fgqvSmBUbYK7P+63QTNfxkg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr014PzVJj9Y6O=PBGc_QSVtur-0wMpaNkFA0dqr8FHGuA@mail.gmail.com> <44e7ac61-523a-d35e-9024-7e6df81e4226@gmail.com> <be92f523-eeaa-8ed4-afdf-4a537f53748c@si6networks.com> <7b3809f0-2db4-bcff-b669-66911ee9c087@gmail.com> <8345b02d-4c26-d5d8-7d85-1e85f3b15642@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:22:19 -0500
Message-ID: <27939.1609996939@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/RwIR3SXDtBTW6WrHl-zZovN91_o>
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, 07 Jan 2021 05:22:26 -0000

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
    > But this is where we go back to the original question:
    > * RFC4007 says that global scope addresses are globally unique.

    > * RFC4193 aims to reduce the collision fo a number of ULA prefixes when
    > grouped together, but certainly does *not* result in globally-unique
    > prefixes. Still, RFC4193 claims that ULAs globals.

    > So from the pov of RFC4193, ULAs are globals. From the pov of RFC4007, they
    > are not.

    > Which of the two (RFC4007 vs RFC4193) takes precedence?

It really doesn't matter, because Global has many terms.

ULAs are globally unique (ideally), but are not globally routable.

Their lack of routability is not an architectural consideration, but a
bureaucratic RIR-based concern.  They don't get RPSL, RPKI, whois or reverse DNS.

{Whether you are convinced of the statistics of ULA-R being unique or not,
does not change the goal that they be unique}

RFC4007 defines a Global Scope. (Not Global Routing)
ULAs have Global Scope, and I see nothing in RFC4007 that contradicts that.

Unless, you live in IPv4 land, and think that everything that isn't RFC1918
must be routable. And I'm sure that you don't think that way.

This python library you mention is wrong, but being a python library, is
probably too opinionate to listen to reason.

--
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