IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 15 April 2024 20:48 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 C3300C14F69D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 G0jzQKncftII for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (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 56C0AC14EB19 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6eff9dc1821so1277442b3a.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1713214100; x=1713818900; 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=vSz1zOKe27gIz49IndJwKLSmurkeAd55uY6uxocbwIs=; b=K0a9GkddXQdkJ7qMkTzFNwC7RP4nN1SRhk0mqHj+mZCJTmMUccekmd6Tky5dCNMAzj KK5e7Lsg7z5lgy5wmKUfy2TPXiJ+Ljc4DQKnMa9UIxIP484iN3C+jJTQhfup+Zv6rV7Z zjhiqOH9yQi7gNhEBSMS3x29ackf/idMOJBeKPi1mpOSuh8ymtD2vmn7fZBZ1rD54swo qgWaj7tifT/xxXFol2qIRUdRPFltEZlCHTHfvP77QivUwuXYyzXxsWACoBcAu5499EtW +GtVl7sO/hvJAjFO19EzRL1SM7MFzCcxwhqtpqJLRjRsyc1et6RpLy6f2YCtdqg6Q+Yy GXRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713214100; x=1713818900; 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=vSz1zOKe27gIz49IndJwKLSmurkeAd55uY6uxocbwIs=; b=nLJcVn6aWTGvy5WEB3Cgtqp7N87MQn/Osy8/u6DGuwRt7ko5pKS/28dH8X2wBhx8QD ybWw5lxK7uehAk6C1zMuGLqHx4Xr+F8uEh86RGdSdG05kURm31OSwkBkRH2UHDldd6q/ dBaY4wgvQkKxJSzO3JjDNuTQLlPtZ7NsT8qpWpVeO+Zm71qTkexC9YrOJQ2VBCm8SkEr urSkv10V/1HKBMsTwqBzL6Ygo1FxFaiSLNR8RwQQD/3SpjlRCxMYtcp0zZsN/lzKaRnX 5yRKiJzhg8XFmYhMvnVnE1Hv5rB799xw1ioCjqtFoIr529zIc6HLZpXYV8ilty7yLj0Y DWAg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX0XNX2aELuZ0BNUBYlaiFICIiI4qLaE6wbQhDR6EFQHiyuxVQI2Vd6N2SOiw/MJhEBIgd1PX8jhLn1r0rS
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwQEh0x4XcqLID9p7tGeDg9kJQQqS0LOWPj6dP2stgzEx9l1ENc CrMd6GqajF9wZNWejqhGIQ1CdOOcfjuv5WWYYlNO/l4FEZHfXUnSrqqTDo02
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFjLvhwK6zARofn6PamqnJCAxkoF/1/+ElwBXt3w+2T8F5QLiY4YRU5sMVrt2lS809ycmL0wA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:3e0a:b0:1a9:4570:2d3b with SMTP id bk10-20020a056a213e0a00b001a945702d3bmr9735597pzc.7.1713214099584; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
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 d4-20020a056a00198400b006ed59172d2fsm7655422pfl.87.2024.04.15.13.48.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1b0d778a-2484-49e1-a47b-2e1e60542393@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:48:15 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <6A5E5F35-B35F-4358-8EE1-3BD82329141E@jisc.ac.uk> <6FBC1B5A-BF28-4B05-B2B2-A60DA4707755@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1m-Ye8vfOVnsPesFshLMV5QuVoxWqM=HVZiJ37zaBg6AA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1NTvFj0zB0=+nnUKck7TBtwHFz2XoFkD1smx4yCuZohQ@mail.gmail.com> <1EFB11CD-544F-4AD7-B414-6A626075975D@employees.org> <CAPt1N1kJFgu6FhFaVhhkPnEY2dofcLF2ZuKDBHJFF5UU6R+x2g@mail.gmail.com> <F301BC19-2D6D-42F5-9C94-0516A765B97C@jisc.ac.uk> <CAPt1N1k4FGbTVVk1QTw0-or0PxkhSPqGda8fHrJKb2t4shNGkw@mail.gmail.com> <CFFA3926-583D-4DA0-B981-3D58048DE894@jisc.ac.uk> <CAO42Z2zFtd1xJm_un34Srkz6NV0i3Zvk3dFN=s=BPaHPa2OhFg@mail.gmail.com> <B0ED4A11-82CA-483E-9ECD-A0B39D157871@jisc.ac.uk>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B0ED4A11-82CA-483E-9ECD-A0B39D157871@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Y2GxIG3mdgMnWUlYkgO963Poh4s>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:48:20 -0000

On 16-Apr-24 03:41, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 15 Apr 2024, at 16:38, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024, 00:22 Tim Chown, <Tim.Chown=40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>>     On 15 Apr 2024, at 15:11, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I think we're possibly having different interpretations about what adopting the MUST language would mean. I'm assuming that it means that we do not change the priority of ULA other than known-local ULA.
>>
>>     Well, if we agree to the MUST (with the usual caveat of any IETF ‘MUST’ for an implementor :) then we need to review the rest of the text, which would include the default policy table, and the section David contributed.  I think you’re right, that proposed default table as is would have to change.
>>
>>>     Thanks for holding my feet to the fire on this—I'd completely glossed over the fact that if we /just/ change the SHOULD to a MUST, we haven't done that.
>>
>>     It’s the SHOULD that’s fuzzy. I’d personally lean towards doing the same, i.e. making the default the “safe” one, keeping general ULA-ULA below IPv4-IPv4 (despite saying we shouldn’t design for misconfigurations), but I may not be speaking for all authors (we’ve not discussed it yet).
>>
>>
>> Preferring IPv4 over ULA is preferring IPv4 over IPv6.
>>
>> Aren't we supposed to be phasing out IPv4 as soon as possible by preferring IPv6?
> 
> My personal take on the “compromise” we’re heading towards is that we are, but only for ULAs that are known to be local, but for those cases we’re also preferring them ahead of GUAs.

Yes. And stop there, but require a configuration option required as I already suggested, since we know there are many possible scenarios. We cannot achieve perfection, given the limits of the RFC3484 mechanism.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email