Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>
Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Thu, 11 April 2024 06:40 UTC
Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 4015DC14F69E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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
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 pW64w26NOr2g for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35FD6C14F681 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VFVM24VNtz67Cp1; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:35:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.188.26.250]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 114FB140519; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:40:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) by mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.28; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:40:30 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.250]) by mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.250]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.028; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:40:30 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update>
Thread-Index: AQHai1v2iINrSQjA3UewoPevk/DBrrFhejGAgABBMgCAAOPS4A==
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:40:30 +0000
Message-ID: <2c23c963a0a9411d8bcecb4861cd5052@huawei.com>
References: <6A5E5F35-B35F-4358-8EE1-3BD82329141E@jisc.ac.uk> <6FBC1B5A-BF28-4B05-B2B2-A60DA4707755@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUX3VFcRtFUoCy+Uxn6UQYsB-wo+64PSufBWxW67Y64bw@mail.gmail.com> <78b58b14-fa17-4637-9a78-e4cebff7e117@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <78b58b14-fa17-4637-9a78-e4cebff7e117@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.199.56.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ax8-P906hnbwQk1089HdTMRk9E8>
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:40:38 -0000
I like this: > All implementations MUST support inserting known-local prefixes. > This feature MUST be configurable on or off. > This feature SHOULD be configured on by default. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 23:04 To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>; Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update> On 11-Apr-24 04:10, Kyle Rose wrote: > I am still in favor of advancing this document to publication. Preferably ASAP. > > I am not in favor of hardening the language for inserting known-local prefixes into the policy table to "MUST". The need for this is not universal: > > * At my sites I am fine with preferring GUA->GUA over ULA->ULA, in large part because I don't have any names that map to both types of address. But that isn't universally true. I think we want a default that covers the most probable case, and of course flexibility for other cases. So All implementations MUST support inserting known-local prefixes. This feature MUST be configurable on or off. This feature SHOULD be configured on by default. The last point is IMHO the normal case; why would you configure ULAs if you don't want to use them? But certainly there is room for disagreement on that point, as Kyle indicates. > > * I regard seeing or attempting to use unreachable ULA (e.g., discovered in global DNS or found in other configuration) as a configuration error that should be resolved by fixing the source of the unreachable addresses. Yes, but that says nothing about whether GUA->GUA or ULA->ULA is preferred. > > I would actually be in favor of*softening*the normative language to"MAY",or to add an opt-in mechanism via "SHOULD, if configured to do so, enable ..."as the need for policy table updates is entirely a function of how a particular network is administered. I have no need for that functionality, and would rather not deal with the complexity it might introduce when all I really want out of this entire effort is preferring ULA->ULA over IPv4->IPv4. A standard means for changing this configuration setting (e.g., via RA) could then be specified later. No, we shouldn't leave anything we know about today for "later". Tomorrow never comes. Brian > > Kyle > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Given the number of changes since the first w.g. last call, the chairs, in consultation with the authors, are staring a second 6MAN working group last call for this document. > > This email starts a second two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing "Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724" document > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update/> > > as a Standards Track document. > > A summary of changes since the -06 version is below. A good diff to review is: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html> > > [New draft on left due to line length problem with old draft] > > Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. This last call will end on 24 April 2024 23:59 UTC. > > Also, one issue the authors would like feedback on is if the requirement is a SHOULD or MUST for inserting known-local ULA prefixes into their policy table with a precedence above both GUAs and IPv4, while leaving all other general ULAs at a lower precedence. It is a SHOULD in the -08 draft, but there has been support for a MUST in the discussion. > > Bob, Jen, Ole > 6MAN chairs > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>> >> *Subject: **Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08.txt* >> *Date: *April 9, 2024 at 7:47:57 AM PDT >> *To: *IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>> >> >> Hi, >> >> Actually it works better I notice with 08 on the left and 06 on the right, as -06 has the broken formatting, so please check the diff from -06 to the current -08 using: >> >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&difftype=--html> >> >> The changes are largely around making the MAY insert local entries into a SHOULD insert known-locals, with a little more text on how we’d determine those. >> >> Tim >> >>> On 9 Apr 2024, at 15:13, Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net <mailto:buraglio@forwardingplane.net>> wrote: >>> >>> We have published -08 of the rfc6724 update, this fixes some >>> formatting and other typographical oversights >>> The following sections address comments from the lis (difft from -06 >>> to -08 is the most useful comparison): >>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&difftype=--html <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-06&url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-08&difftype=--html> >>> >>> >>> Brief overview of the changes from -06: >>> >>> Section 2: >>> Add terminology section and define known-local >>> >>> Section 3: >>> Add section on elevating >>> upgrades the requirement in RFC 6724 for nodes to insert a higher >>> precedence entry in the policy table for observed ULA prefixes that >>> are known to be local, referred to in this document as "known-local" >>> ULAs, from a MAYto a SHOULD. >>> >>> Section 4: >>> Changes the 6to4 prefix deprecation to match Teredo, adds further >>> clarity and reference to RFC6724 section 10.7 >>> >>> Section 5: >>> Add text to upgrade the requirement to automatically insert >>> known-local ULAs into a node's policy table from a MAY to a SHOULD. >>> >>> Section 5.3 >>> Further define insertion and removal parameters and requirements for >>> known-local ULA prefixes into table and associated values and label >>> >>> Section 7.2: >>> Further clarify GUA-GUA preferred over ULA-ULA details >>> >>> Section 7.3: >>> Further clarify ULA-ULA preferred over IPv4-IPv4 details >>> >>> Section 8: >>> Housekeeping and formatting changes >>> >>> Section 9.2: >>> Describe the new known-local interaction and how it addresses issues >>> with ULAs in global DNS >>> >>> >>> >>> Further copy edit and housekeeping. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update… internet-drafts
- Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-up… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [IPv6] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-up… Tim Chown
- [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <draft-… Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Bob Hinden
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jeremy Duncan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jeremy Duncan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jeremy Duncan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Michael Richardson
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jared Mauch
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jeremy Duncan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jeremy Duncan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ole Trøan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ole Trøan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jared Mauch
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ole Troan
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… David Farmer
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Tim Chown
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Mark Smith
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Jared Mauch
- Re: [IPv6] Second Working Group Last Call for <dr… Kyle Rose