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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 08 January 2021 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 275EF3A0FD5; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:18:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 mFRrgdCN9rEz; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 78A443A0FD3; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D98123AB0CD; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C897F160051; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA24160056; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id XKNsoYu0oYah; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:18:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.68] (n114-75-149-106.bla4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [114.75.149.106]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92548160051; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 01:18:49 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <BE6C041F-94B2-400D-B114-A76962190660@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 12:18:46 +1100
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <78D0D84C-53DB-4661-BA43-CFEB1F377BB4@isc.org>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <m1kx98E-0000EhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b53b5d62-0334-f791-f56a-f2122767ecdb@si6networks.com> <m1kxAVC-0000KhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAHL_VyD85e9=taY1XENf7hc=BXRyD_7JJFDCW2Oq_a0z3hYqUA@mail.gmail.com> <bc29edad-b57b-bb53-141b-8f58c5ca2526@si6networks.com> <91424EEE-EF12-4B5B-ADE4-38230E049290@isc.org> <m1kxTmy-0000KhC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <6F3726EE-F089-4F26-BB30-F22686617C03@fugue.com> <m1kxWh9-0000ImC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BE6C041F-94B2-400D-B114-A76962190660@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nBs0pEe2uX-HdogvQIVQjvw7Uro>
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 01:18:53 -0000


> On 8 Jan 2021, at 02:08, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 9:55 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-7@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>> I can see a few benefits of Mark's proposal. One is that it is good to
>> have a standard representation of information. In particular,
>> Mark's proposal would make it possible to have a master zone file that has
>> both public and private DNS entries. Then a split-DNS server could serve
>> only the public data to the outside world. 
> 
> That’s a good point, although it would still be a good point if this were just a feature of the zone file and not of the wire format.
> 
>> At the same time, I think it would be great if we can put link-local addresses
>> in DNS. 
> 
> That sounds like a really heavy lift.
> 
>> It may tie in nicely with scope IDs in socket addresses. If a DNS
>> record specifies that is valid only on a VPN link, then maybe we can already
>> tie the address to that link. No need to change applications, it can be
>> hidden in the stub resolver.
> 
> Now we need to standardize a way to identify links. This is a Hard Problem. I say this based on experience, not supposition. HNCP tried to do this, not as successfully as I’d hoped. I’ve been working on it for the Thread Border Router work, and haven’t come up with a general solution. Sure, if you have a data center and a managed multi-subnet LAN, and you can just type in configurations, this works, but most networks aren’t like that.  I think the VPN case is probably tractable, but it’s really hard to see a path to broad adoption for this idea.


My idea would be that there would also be a RA option(s) which advertised the names in the SA records that where applicable to the link.  Implicit to that is that there would be a API that allows getaddrinfo() to retrieve the
RA options for individual links and for all links on the node.  getaddrinfo() would use the later.  The former would be used to construct UPDATE requests for the DNS etc.  LLSANAME (link-local SA name), ULASANAM (ULA SA name), and perhaps others.

> If there is a path to broad adoption, it probably involves bottom-up work, not top-down design. Most of the ideas I’ve had about this that I think are practicable are very context-dependent. E.g., you can identify that you are on the same link because you received a link-scoped multicast.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org