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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 13 February 2021 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 8E2833A0D52; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:21:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 gGsVrA0hf1ZP; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8134F3A0D4B; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:1c77:acfc:e6a8:1311] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:1c77:acfc:e6a8:1311]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F2392801D2; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 09:20:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <F4E00812-E366-4520-AE17-7BB46E28D575@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3iOjjU+FLpdtA7nqfKRX+sjjSanAU8U-O3pH-k5nSoig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <a3fbfb94-90ae-961c-a2ab-33ade27e074e@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 06:19:44 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau3iOjjU+FLpdtA7nqfKRX+sjjSanAU8U-O3pH-k5nSoig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hS7yxpLJ-ndAFbheAjILZmv4XGY>
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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 09:21:01 -0000

Hello, David,

On 13/2/21 06:00, David Farmer wrote:

> I don't think "site-local" is the right idea at all. First, let's set 
> aside ULA for a moment, and look at some other entries in the IANA IPv6 
> Special-Purpose Address Registry;
> 
[....]
> 
> 
> I want to call your attention to the Local-Use IPv4/IPv6 Translation 
> Prefix (not the WKP), the Discard-Only Prefix, and the IPv6 Benchmarking 
> Prefix, they are not Globally Reachable but are Forwardable. Since they 
> are Forwardable they can't be "Link-Local Scope". But, they can't be 
> "Global Scope" either, there will most certainly be other interfaces on 
> the Internet that have the same address, and that is acceptable as they 
> are intended to be administratively limited and their uniqueness is the 
> responsibility of an administrator.

Good grief!



> So, I think we need a third scope, I propose the "Admin Scope", or the 
> "Admin-Limited Scope", but I'm open to other ideas for the name. 
> However, it can't be Site-Local, we deprecated that

"Admin-limited scope" seems fine -- and conveys the intended meaning, it 
seems.


[...]
> How do we define this third scope; this scope exists logically between 
> the Link-Local and Global Scopes, with a local administrator defining 
> the precise boundary between it and the Global Scope, including, but not 
> limited to a site boundary, with the local administrator ensuring the 
> uniqueness within the scope they define.
> 
> Now if we agree a third scope is necessary,

Well, whether we call it out or not, as per RFC4007:

               scope(LL) < scope(ULA) < scope(GUA)

So it's more about acknowledging facts than about introducing or needing 
a new scope.  The same applies to the addresses you mentioned before.


> then ULA most logically 
> belongs in this new third scope that is in between Link-Local and 
> Global. Yes, if the administrator randomly selects the ULA prefix as 
> defined in RFC4193, it is highly unlikely there will be an overlap, 
> however, the administrator still has the responsibility to reject any 
> overlapping randomly selected prefix to ensure uniqueness within the 
> scope that they are administratively defining.

Agreed.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492