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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Wed, 06 January 2021 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 1AD213A0F3D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:38:32 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 e9gz_76P3ySg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9C753A0EF9 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 20:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9c7R6NjMz9vbJV for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 04:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8pCB-LH2AxoA for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:38:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f71.google.com (mail-ej1-f71.google.com [209.85.218.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D9c7R2qt3z9vYxg for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:38:27 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4D9c7R2qt3z9vYxg
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4D9c7R2qt3z9vYxg
Received: by mail-ej1-f71.google.com with SMTP id m11so836548ejr.20 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 20:38:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WQdUxq1ytyVplLkVJOIk96RjBVwPNCJ/nPb6Oz5naKQ=; b=inOgmPtwvtn0c/EEMLF9CblCHi8TRuviUFT48jETru4k8ENVbqIBuxUMDtu3EqV06B ovgYTkEez1sDb9jTAOGmUDZ0RSG3F2JcbqHYgiha8IwZVAm820KvtvZJIRxcFMpZ5PpE NZmr0hf3dNrbgNeD/sqlEu+jFqcWYIYEefr9us0kEi6Tgn60D44j4wm3ZlOMFFFViudu +ePilF6wmsupi80a1htqZPMoKyVRkcQxOGlPVmrw6fB+vzHis5h4Ad1bkjIz9kbtnzrC 5vUXUhjngF4EsfMkHPh5rfA1c/baFMPlcMFdMZoZHQBXEsdhotZ7zOudvU2tZPRyi6Hs TqXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WQdUxq1ytyVplLkVJOIk96RjBVwPNCJ/nPb6Oz5naKQ=; b=XWzLzytPmvko/CpyhyANZ71utgRClWlF44F7mnxpiieOKnMF/hRDY3pBThWqAfqPMA Sdq5LWQuTl0+W7XIiGbua0hnMwBYX9VWu8D4FOjs8AkpzGehQxoxbwi2cjbXuuOxZCt9 avT4c2DD8/Wx0P63XL+gc3d3I/7cLy2QF5QEn2jGbtW4dXNOfswvofKYa/3AGIoJ+9j3 yk0MTq+dMkWazy0t0a191w28gq39KOK6QhsRwrJ8IiIaJljl6/OHktiFPJsM/XDyzu5i gixMD3Ge0knibUiHY+n/w3rozg0o3sicLNjuLGSK0o8ps/PGA9TlqhcZ1ZFzVMlvfnOB XsJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MAyEkcQJ/cDnhq2eVlU9ib2hKWRPw/rz+I4axgnZYKrXon/bw e0lRq1FXydnmn1NwKNiaZ7nVodSvN93vcVSTk9SJ1tho/zWos0BiVrwNdMw/twgo22rTTht5D7Q 00kjj+eQDRNMk34/fM4k66dKJ
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4fcc:: with SMTP id i12mr557831ejw.32.1609907905733; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 20:38:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqcJbBLz5gh1h2Pe475I6c9jU6ucsqH5hGMVpZuszEadvlLI576eY0mtD5GybNRdG+jEmGZGK2c3wbVtWTeYo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4fcc:: with SMTP id i12mr557814ejw.32.1609907905388; Tue, 05 Jan 2021 20:38:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 22:38:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau344H7xgD0Q_O54c=R08zFRFjToO8BHt=ssauxgEH7ynA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d27cd705b833e449"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/b9q1rjDOAy6KCp70kLVjdYFDUvc>
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 04:38:33 -0000

I think this is the right direction the previous draft indirectly defined a
new scope "non-global", I much prefer explicitly defining a new local scope.

I would add something like the following to better define the relationship
between the three scopes;

The boundary of the link-local scope is strongly defined, limiting the
extent of the link-local scope to an individual link. However, in contrast,
the boundary of the local scope is weakly defined, it is amorphous and
imprecise. In some instances, the extent of the local scope can be a single
site, in other instances, a group of unrelated sites, a single
organization, or even a cooperating group of organizations. Furthermore,
the extent of an individual instance of the local scope doesn't necessarily
remain constant, it may expand or contract over time as the local situation
dictates, for example when two organizations merge. Nevertheless, the
extent of the local scope doesn’t encompass the entirety of the Internet
which the global scope does.


On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:21 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Based on the recent discussion on the v6ops list
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/b7r35HgOb-6dfxsDoW8c4FtGnZo//),
>
> I've posted this new I-D, meant to discuss the scope of ULAs:
>
> Title: "Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
> I-D: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt
>
>
> Short version of the story:
>
> ULAs are formally part of the GUA space. However, the characteristics of
> ULAs do not seem to match the definition of global scope from RFC4007
> (IPv6 Scope Addr Architecture). ULA seem to have a scope of
> scope(link-local) < scope(ULA) < scope(GUA).
>
> This is not only a terminology thing (which I think is nevertheless
> important to get right) but also has practical implications. For
> example, there's a python library that considers ULAs as "not global",
> and "private" -- contradicting the current RFC4291/RFC4193 specs.
>
> Prior to posting this document, we had some on-list discussion (on the
> v6ops list) and also some off-list discussion with some of you (bcc'ed).
>
> The opinions have been in one of these camps:
>
> 1) the current specs are coherent and there's no problem
>
> 2) There's a problem with the definition of "global scope" -- so ULAs
> *are* global scope, but global scope does not really stand for the
> definition in RFC4007.
>
> 3) The definitions in RFC4007 are correct, and thus the scope of ULAs is
> not really global, but scopee(link-local) < scope(ULAs) < scope(global)
>
>
> While this document does propose a way out (it assumes #3 above, and
> acts accordingly), I believe the first step is to agree on what "global
> scope" means and, subsequently, whether ULAs are really "global scope"
> or not. Since opinions on the topic have vary a lot (as noted above),
> I've posted this I-D and I'm sending this note for further input from
> the WG.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Fernando
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 17:02:20 -0800
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
> Document date:  2021-01-05
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          8
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope/
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00
>
>
> Abstract:
>     Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULAs) are formally part of the
>     IPv6 Global Unicast address space.  However, the semantics of ULAs
>     clearly contradict the definition of "global scope".  This document
>     discusses the why the terminology employed for the specification of
>     ULAs is problematic, along with some practical consequences of the
>     current specification of ULAs.  Finally, it formally updates RFC4291
>     and RFC4193 such that the scope of ULAs is defined as "local".
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================