IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: ULA Registration

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 1F1CF1294C8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 V-wFck9TyhHr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DB51126D05 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v2OI1xGE059621; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:02:00 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.220]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v2OI1mDL059483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:01:48 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdc::8988:efdc) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:01:48 -0700
Received: from XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) by XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.239.220]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:01:48 -0700
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
CC: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: ULA Registration
Thread-Topic: ULA Registration
Thread-Index: AQHSpL8Wtghz9V35LkmfhLX/yLgT5qGkQ4yg
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:01:48 +0000
Message-ID: <39db830bd4d04faca308c01d0d39b8ae@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <CAN-Dau132Jg0SsRjgcrxzGfbUEx_KPES9wMgDMg_++-zwY+0dw@mail.gmail.com> <7c4412a4-6494-961d-165b-9c5d267015a7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7c4412a4-6494-961d-165b-9c5d267015a7@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eIrDgj6wvvOZc9bSmjbcT3JalT4>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:02:02 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu

> On my side, I hesitated before registering my small ULA prefixes
> on sixxs.

Me too. I think of ULA as functionally equivalent to RFC 1918 addresses. A registry for ULAs, or ULA-C, is not and should not be mandatory. Consequently, such a registry is of limited effectiveness. ULAs are easily identified, so they can be blocked at boundaries between administrative domains (unless the administrative domains have a special agreement), to mitigate the problem David mentioned, of tracking down ULAs that appear on the Internet.

> But, if in the future very many computers hit this unique-/64
> limit, then ULA-C w/ or w/o NAT66 could become real necessities.

Not sure that a ULA registry is needed even in this eventuality. And any decent PRNG should be good enough to generate random prefixes?

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email