IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Possible issue with source address selection for ULAs...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 04 January 2022 22:00 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 476C43A2041; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:00:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 NqImL_4JDGBc; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:00:08 -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 88F433A1FDA; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 14:00:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578F738A2D; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:05:32 -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 RZ9EoW4MsIS0; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:05:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF16C38A27; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:05:29 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1641333929; bh=rZ0GTRL94tvnpWuVNwIyBoGQknZPT+FVvxAnvHX5jeI=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=LK4F3JjnOPR28UWdo97Y0PJtKwLJCnN99mw4Wdd+VeMAId01PrGL3O7LMQUqdD0mW 8wk2RvHNmhCV+tRwVYEkNklW619/oUJFtlff09wUidmlXSDTPeiJdBZWwFufh9648k VXHMgvZxyY8W4ewoHeblVlw0X3KGhOQq04bUpq5Dkxlhr1CENhLV2F/gV3Oxwfw3Gu oBmmo81d0/+MJsOz1WdUBCbrJz5ZVAA4AySCkyZuki7veQO31tKA3FvyLs/Y0+lXIU URiBof2XbJweJG1LgtQdqZcjrwSHZAZSO7f2hN0v69YQhLWtH8ykHH50pQ4lRXgeg/ ip2zeGtqZtEkA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF163FE; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:00:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Possible issue with source address selection for ULAs...
In-Reply-To: <D4C144D3-4227-4102-A00C-10C2CB686AAE@gmail.com>
References: <4DD59CC3-1BDB-4A1C-A33B-8CC3EDE622A8@chinaunicom.cn> <550d1375e15941199e23f3d7a309cb4d@huawei.com> <CAPt1N1mXK1nsJ=1wyKm-ToqLj=+j2hXrywAyNZmE0X67ipT89g@mail.gmail.com> <73353834-0DFD-4542-95B1-06BAD1F32D41@employees.org> <D4C144D3-4227-4102-A00C-10C2CB686AAE@gmail.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: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 17:00:02 -0500
Message-ID: <22084.1641333602@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/axnDPD-uNVhsASNFEWNl5LOwaE8>
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: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 22:00:19 -0000

I would like to hear an argument for why any organization would want to
number their routers with ULAs.  Or more specifically, why would one use a
ULA for the source address for ICMPv6s.

(I don't care what you use to manage your router: RFC8994 even says ULAs
would be great for ACP management)

It's not just that it might break a bunch of things, it's that there seems to
be no good reason to do.  It's IPv4 scarcity think.  Allocate a /64 and
number all your routers as /128 from within.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status