Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 27 September 2022 00:14 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 57077C14F741 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69cWKVhd8NR7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 4D403C14F730 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Mc0Vz35zGz9wGRr for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:14:51 +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 JI_Ur3AdiBSx for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:14:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-f69.google.com (mail-ed1-f69.google.com [209.85.208.69]) (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 4Mc0Vy75hHz9wGRj for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:14:50 -0500 (CDT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4Mc0Vy75hHz9wGRj
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4Mc0Vy75hHz9wGRj
Received: by mail-ed1-f69.google.com with SMTP id h13-20020a056402280d00b004528c8400afso6387163ede.6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=/Nb/ltFOCJHvE57fWepqYzPBjfLfWpuTWxHtnlWRaHw=; b=K4dZ40RRKrN3To1ImiloXDYafM4A0zGeJKtzsYw770B7f+RwZPa/8ICWS7DniV7332 XibrMgqRNiQXJTgJIg3ne31qbGqniUoaAJrIv+N7lMxID6jCLCiMAKP2V87Z6zb5vX/q 9AUad7iaJL/8kJl84EwCB1yPyrqochv9uSqnl6LUmDCGt5Fz0vANGycwiCNVEOxGTpfs KBd2xEqe5WZYq7rFoemjrSCdz73+HLmYLEg+HEzKfoR9q+tOVup+vmc+XeI52PKNrmpj UXg8RZ2yMvVmQaXJxlFGAkpujIvyBVJ8mDrQ13QqJp3Qw1UXhQnGTosEx5N5UGwpZ6Dl jtRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=/Nb/ltFOCJHvE57fWepqYzPBjfLfWpuTWxHtnlWRaHw=; b=cmnFW/vBG2NfyA89pvB5glMjID8TTFz5aH72sC09NxF+tPiqL/IUOnYuKc3hItsC4B JbJFEn/7v9yBX5/XlJ6WQm3sP89xDe0yDLm3hghUP/xkVEylOEAVc3f5Av9GhKh558CM o2IdiBAtu6wkd+HXua86bnxHOaEbwFGbcDBKe2oQ/x0JRkhyy8YZsJzl7H75pvEnZIlL Xn+hrJ1+mO4LEQz+Q5DSafx5jqYGQYt/DlOrm69vK3RydjvAak5R9B19ELJVSWgznLKX sOeIsbrlYkO3BAWXklsbCA9uZ5Q4Uy+iDm1SiZpw4Mxvm4SRJs6RSeLK4+bn1WQlwbgw qdaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3OifXcffbr9wSyVQWfDI68Phl9c0Iw2oqR45e23VKkHM/QZqg3 F3JSC8wp/3vc80JkSbmZttzPzG6cIPs+7NN9eOEpsNB3MzH2VHpvGbTqWLnfdcnDhAUMIZ87tKM cLn4VWYgS6K3y/DyIkQ2Cl4JR
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1350:b0:77f:76a7:a0f with SMTP id x16-20020a170906135000b0077f76a70a0fmr20345294ejb.503.1664237689468; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6JKNrQGzSDdmngbTZmNcZLlhwWoJbKql7Q3ME4ENnnFRoyh55wl1446s0DITr0rVsk5tFpUBmE6mOj1fvcpyU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1350:b0:77f:76a7:a0f with SMTP id x16-20020a170906135000b0077f76a70a0fmr20345273ejb.503.1664237689118; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <66892DC8-6DA4-4DC8-85B0-E1E1647CD9F7@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=xR_2Xw+1KL6vbzZ69N+vonhcTNvO=DBceeApfoS2bMQ@mail.gmail.com> <e76267b6101146cf8a1bd6fa567c6b77@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau2QO5sxevJwUbOj+_wyiCdOjnPEZM14Jhevvkq4YZqU7Q@mail.gmail.com> <bc85e623-ef89-d2e2-4e33-b8ce0a4ec343@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0Wbki6xwcEdy8ZK-pO9jeT6+8TKZgbmXWUgnkR+dRhBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=OmC+HNVGWbgj9JtGbpcuzKOgjZ1KXJm5mXgpji-G4Mw@mail.gmail.com> <6edcc5d8-edf1-51de-103c-a4ac6060fef6@gmail.com> <29689d645d22409b962f6c361d71e098@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau3rwi4X4NqLbHMmPQQ=i7y23Kz70JK09ggsXSxkJfT5xA@mail.gmail.com> <bf7c7d74cc7744ef8ded7d043ceb3e5e@huawei.com> <CAN-Dau0=LD9MTYKJQoSw=b9S25nmrNuqRSyLdsztFZscG8ZbUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kjOWh8R70pNO0eH9EJUH-v6HyxGMqxpy0N2hydHN33LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM5+tA9mqjrtq3pTggv1pA4fOYXUODkZHy74vs8cffVOrBefbQ@mail.gmail.com> <0b6886d3-5ea9-0a1d-8b16-4e17daeb6924@gmail.com> <CAM5+tA9dAjh0MTRG3922xTe3_aChHFa9AYCFCGmt395KwuvBYA@mail.gmail.com> <395554.1664189125@dooku> <56a897a426084f9381abaf770f1ea35e@huawei.com> <CAO42Z2xgMnVXeH9t0p_u7bg2fY-Gg+AagkFMMRJstX4E-f8FPQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xgMnVXeH9t0p_u7bg2fY-Gg+AagkFMMRJstX4E-f8FPQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 19:14:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0i2kEUEd1ESVg0qT4rosPhjpaeYDoyrE5mzALXWTtJXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048400205e99d88d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jjesNFVX1i_jWnz3PHcGGUGDegU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 00:14:57 -0000
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 18:17 Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote: > > Define another flag if this is going to be the solution to the fault of > putting ULA AAAAs in global DNS. > > (Can it be adapted to the fault of putting link-local addresses in DNS?) > ULAs in the global DNS, are only one of several faults that is being worked around with this admitted hack. Another is the lose or even nonexistent boundary controls between the local and global domains in most networks, especially unmanaged networks, which can expose local information more widely than expected by most users. This is all further exasperated by the lack of any precise definition of what local means, and the very concept a globally scoped local address only adds to this confusion. A sign that it's not solving the problem where it exists. > The problems exists in my places. -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================
- RFC6724-bis? Tim Chown
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Tim Chown
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Bob Hinden
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Mark Smith
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Mark Smith
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? David Farmer
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Nick Buraglio
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Mark Smith
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ted Lemon
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Mark Smith
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Timothy Winters
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Nick Buraglio
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ole Troan
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] David Farmer
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Michael Richardson
- Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?] Ted Lemon
- RE: RFC6724-bis? Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Ted Lemon
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Nick Buraglio
- Re: RFC6724-bis? Michael Richardson