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

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 19 February 2021 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0E73A0C77; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:22:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29TKbs3P39pL; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4A23A0C6F; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCA0928064D; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 03:22:07 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
To: Mark Smith <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 00:06:42 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 03:22:35 -0000

On 18/2/21 22:21, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, 11:37 Brian E Carpenter, 
> < <>> wrote:
>     So, my thought (and it belongs on this thread OR the 'IPv6
>     addressing: Gaps?' one) is something like:
>     We should abolish, delete, expunge and deprecate the word "scope"
>     from all IPv6 documents. It clearly doesn't have an agreed meaning,
>     so it is worse than useless.
> I think the word scope is fine.
> The problem is that by itself it doesn't specify what thing the scope is 
> applying to, and people aren't explicitly saying what that scope they're 
> referring to. "Global scope" - scope of what?

As per RFC4007, scope refers to address uniqueness.

> ULAs (and addresses in general) have at least two different scopes:
> - scope or domain of intended uniqueness

For ULAs, this is "set of interconnected ULA-based networks" -- i.e., 
some sort of limited domain/scope.

> - scope or domain of intended forwarding within a network or across a 
> set of networks

In this case, same as before.

Normally, both of these are equal: and address uniqueness will limit 

> "Scope" and "domain" seem to almost be synonyms. "Global domain", 
> without specifying what "domain" refers to, would have the same problems 
> as the term "global scope".

Per RFC4007, it's global uniqueness it refers to.

That's why introduced the 
flag "globally reachable" to the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address 

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492