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

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

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.

 * 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.

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.

Kyle


On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> 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/
>
>  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
>
> [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 [e-mail] 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=[e-mail]>
> *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 <[e-mail]>
>
> 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
>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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
>
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>