Re: Additional Documentation Prefixes (was Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06)

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 5D4D9120144 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:09:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Kf9Hqo67yU4S for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF051200EB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id e17so4497514otk.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:09:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SC7TNB220EJhmVL1CxvG7FOWy3vimrZPDcCdg0xbrM4=; b=WmtFSwO2yn27XsF4OWZfnEgvtfZbpepGfgZN/nNSNiiHdMtDy4x2/tKmdsunwtxjvt hSBZUeZgj/o6o+roWGc0vzWYKg3QTAnL1X/JKwIQZroa/g16XpFkP7fu7+LMcYOVsVJE ZkM7sGsqmZ0gRCH5TmMdzPxnIRr+OBYLSDc/yvRQnEsTbKJKKLZpMI4PfhTzb5R46+44 3lHxTAnL7gCeXct0zllqpTFp9CIVF5wsAbUczK+XMNGCpNVc72rLR0oMRU8+mvgx+HmE DwWLFZlzmvG81+T1fsyJeZUYnEKJNJiRqSjOmIXH6+hPgipPib++r/iyDYeAYd7VH+sJ dHTA==
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=SC7TNB220EJhmVL1CxvG7FOWy3vimrZPDcCdg0xbrM4=; b=VfWHAj94RYak0B3pEnT2vbiLAolqbXiZisIsK8aGGq8heiBZejjfxGseXK+6rtRwK1 NDYGhF/NAXALX79V3JaoB/kykjcZqgdAE5BzLyfuOWZbHbNH9Ef7BXBtClavtS9bww8m R4equ1J/p7eVHfzh9xz7wa8JnKAatyI6UyN6GAqG21en9ts+odUG6JfML9wtDj6hg02i R4nOI7Pyi/+Wabltb+4CtCaR+lCWpmoRvpoLmoWvOGaIphwgBqIWluOsWxUQwN5FKNFW HBRDSyl+c+0eA6kBz3mbdXo77wBfBTcXT5rUZeVEXcQOuhj1OafRIV+udLCSb+Rq6O78 zwlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWyBItX4XWsPwKUGPjNmlozfNBx/mjzpeC30UkdvMYwlkwZfYt tUiWwRjo/66h6/g/G04MVHjabrsuLZK9Vjmhg7xiEUEc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzLhKALWfXa4Y03r6UleX4WuhXMPZxHFSEMZw38OtKZQgteLNxSdRj9uPCbRx4GhPN0zLJ89jfIX1toMYDCBiM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5c8d:: with SMTP id a13mr17300242oti.94.1572829758164; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:09:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F1B31C38-7CDB-4057-A573-D6AF76B264D3@kaloom.com> <CAKD1Yr1vOqTvEsv0oCm+bu7CkFwiyFv8_G1XM+4JAKYLoA21aA@mail.gmail.com> <27802.1572732078@localhost> <F95A29A5-CEAF-4A23-A678-C5465B248E42@kaloom.com> <24180.1572801507@localhost> <7fd283ed-2328-6a9e-eb86-c5c155ebfd84@gmail.com> <23094.1572826870@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <23094.1572826870@localhost>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:08:52 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2xAQ_46Y+Gf1Y2=m2+Zt21VEN4sauQpmeLi2qkn058eGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Additional Documentation Prefixes (was Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hUhlykV7bYTn6_w_8aVV0MY3eRU>
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 01:09:20 -0000

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 11:21, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>; wrote:
>
>
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
>     >> I guess L=1 is why you call it ULA-L. I have known it as ULA-Random.
>     >> We are both talking about RFC4193 though.  So such a document would need to
>     >> update RFC4193.
>
>     > I think this is a bad and pointless idea. Pointless because it is 100% OK
>     > to use any RFC4193 prefix as an example, since by definition it will never
>     > be used on the Internet, and the chance of collision on a given ULA site
>     > is 1 in 2**40 (and who cares anyway?). Bad because it means that millions
>     > of existing boxes that can generate ULA prefixes would be non-conformant
>     > and, seriously, is any vendor going to update date their firmware for this?
>
> So, each time a document uses a ULA-Random in an example that calls for ULAs,
> someone will ask why they didn't use 2001:db8::/32.
>
> The other plus is places that ask for a ULA to be typed in can recognize the
> Documentation prefix, and suggest that maybe that's not what they wanted to do.
>
> {I don't expect any ULA generator to get updated, as you said, 1/2**40.
> But, on the other hand, how many ULA generators are out there?}
>

How ever many CPE there are that follow RFC 7084, "Basic Requirements
for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" or its ancestor RFC 6204.

That includes all CPE running OpenWRT, the commercial CPE at my
sister's house which she received from her residential ISP without my
involvement (advertising a correctly generated ULA /48 on its LAN
interface, even though IPv6 isn't enabled on the WAN), and one or two
IPv6 CPE I looked at in 2010.


> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------