IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 26 September 2022 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 72357C14CF0B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 03:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Wxb-X4Acj8xz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 03:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CCCC14F720 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 03:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (sulu.imp.fu-berlin.de [160.45.114.22]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329351F489; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:45:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 874391A074A; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:45:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dooku (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850741A0749; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:45:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Network merge [Re: RFC6724-bis?]
In-reply-to: <3b8f5707f2c74db28726a2bb48e6423f@huawei.com>
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> <cd26ae80-2569-6134-c8b0-247c3b 4e32ef@gmail.com> <271325.1664140767@dooku> <3b8f5707f2c74db28726a2bb48e6423f@huawei.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> message dated "Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:26:21 -0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:45:25 +0200
Message-ID: <395554.1664189125@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ppnLkKKf0aNxWo1cWRE59u_UjC8>
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:45:29 -0000

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
    >> Now as to how to fix this without a global precedence for ULAs, I am
    >> wondering about a PIO with L=0 and A=0 (exactly as recommended in RFC
    >> 8028, but for other reasons). If a host sees such a PIO for a ULA
    >> prefix, it could serve as a signal that the prefix is to be given a
    >> suitable precedence, even though it is not on-link and not used for
    >> SLAAC.

    >> I really like this.  I think it is the best solution.

    > But how remote ULA prefix would be known to the local router?  If

It can't, which is fine.

If there are multiple ULAs after a merger, then we do what Brian and
David described and send RIOs or PIOs.

    > proper routing is in place then no problem exists in the first place,
    > the whole FC/7 could be prioritized.

I don't think that non-local ULAs *should* be prioritized.
I think that it's actually a problem as more and more sites use ULA for
significant internal things, and those addresses leak into other sites.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email