IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> Mon, 15 April 2024 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <krose@krose.org>
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 4DDB6C14CE55 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.096 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=krose.org
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 UHjieKdRHY-O for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 53373C14CE51 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-518e2283bd3so2221764e87.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=krose.org; s=google; t=1713205969; x=1713810769; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v5ANPUswIw9HW90iFMHlGsalOIXbHfxdtFqskAQm354=; b=gIT24q4YCrnuHi/dLNXkmuWoJTMH6t3NqSI3UnuhYfUhx3NOtJAzeQZsgO59fbtRhe rnPu1YQcBmCmyf19D94YDxXsjCEpwFyrg0eDQ71qiTQGjwtfYR8tlbVrOBJTDuNrZVTU lbTmJt8GrwzZGZIn7501LlPWjtsIcXa/E7Fw4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713205969; x=1713810769; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=v5ANPUswIw9HW90iFMHlGsalOIXbHfxdtFqskAQm354=; b=Kw54auCSPYIIjCTAFGTizTPq5fa4FJOW8l7ds9EVkQlCLqFIPxayEjWuEeVhvM2yx9 Y8YAMrf7kGDjqllaTO8PYAaNVSW1Zx/bKuJoTpPd/t51+TA2T4/fruNcO2+ebt/ldkat GJat3VQXQoGEvefdB+7DStDudnzTgGWvD8+W54HHOA7wjxWj7ZZiMZaGjdOB4XvXVrwq N2hH7HJFjGJFZmZQvhnQYRaHOrfYMDmJNJhhRrw+gSpCMPg9CvbCbLOJ+xJTWK/X98t8 I7ZEYpY0d7ePc1lItmRInVqtmo3HAWyvJfyPkRclWepacSJDiMKWm/X5mTuUqSlFUjj6 kl5w==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVfc7x2GVVpNRdJyzGvuQ0wFxRS/nbJcAxYY0DtyASnJ2RQ0Ls9uNnTJWZkkFKJU4PvmEsnWo/MqmzEZVMT
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwVgd+29pqyf11XY8Kkk3CvTVHCz4rSqF3xGk1VqJHo7TZ4qqWP Tftd7Kmlys2ZmLV+cW5mnHnd0tMrn1T0Bi9k2PGXLlIJNwP08cPLbKOtDxvRbu5Eq1IR4ed6PdY 5LA0cO4KDOvnPcZdQZAzZc68MJk5HWbG3sw6brA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGrSfqW0rRidqSJZp0Z4aWG45FqMdgJdinoUtfSC8tJYlBYdTCxTGZpyTCAfqp6Hcs695+kQP7UFOqBWxS7j/E=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:b94:b0:518:902d:8b98 with SMTP id b20-20020a0565120b9400b00518902d8b98mr10181977lfv.18.1713205969282; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CAJU8_nXpC4ZmcbpuVoTxykf2KEO1zpdThA=VQKM8iXRjTAgHiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mGn2E2-d9PkvTWePSPUkVik7UO-75ryTa2EkjfR_4ZmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nXXSsJa6ycMZuSmTeNoma1HrBdQ5bD1feb7DDDK5b_dVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mESFzHsK3XyE8DD_mhZjWvMuh=pf9RMmT6BgyO6LryWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nU=pV7L8nFTMMf2nC-koXftLmQEOLnGAv+2MkOT+KHwoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mo8N28YMdVY-BV0pT6mW0bs_Oq5tMY+TRXu1PzjaUKwg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mo8N28YMdVY-BV0pT6mW0bs_Oq5tMY+TRXu1PzjaUKwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:32:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJU8_nXwXPEcPrMnt4vRDO++LkqT=QOsizB7n4od9JaFc83F3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a10ec061626d901"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aRXSUo2FldBWHHZsro9AYhlVyMQ>
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 18:32:55 -0000

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 2:25 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Okay, let's say your case is "natural." In your setup, you'd need to make
> fc00::/6 a "known-local" ULA, and then you would get the behavior you want,
> right? And you could do this by always publishing an fc00::/6 route in all
> your default routers (or a subset, if that makes more sense).
>
fc00::/6 is not a "ULA prefix" in the strict sense implied by the
generation procedure, which has them at 48 bits with 40 bits of entropy. If
the proposal is for known-local to support arbitrary prefixes within the
ULA address space, then yes, I think that would work. It's viscerally
unsatisfying to treat them so differently from GUA (i.e., requiring an
extra route in addition to the default route that should cover it) simply
because we want the shoehorn reachability into address selection, but as
long as I can achieve what I want with O(1) work, I'm not going to complain
too much.

Kyle

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email