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

Ted Lemon <> Sun, 14 February 2021 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9253A08D6 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:57:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HGMW_2xDC6nf for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDB253A08C0 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v19so2316808qvl.7 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:57:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=NhOP1VHvIBB5d28T2tT3GxzBfy+VaYz2/HetJUpGVaw=; b=FNhUn+fUXa2UsnFrbNFTKupLGSl4+yRA3ap6K5Z7ieQ18kGdzFgqFWyRo01u3e3MWm wqB86ALR++qN9LpSV6LorX+FKMiAVYndExuoK72DmTtZka/r/q7eE0garW/JWVjT9ihh 1lH/AAKiHdQeORdkPAHiyrfifUzDww6eE73k0PCOu4StFx6aB8kmnlE/tyTUIn/QPkZh 1AliQFfryfBawSV8ljkUmA3+fRqJTn9SIIA5hbH66+jnlY8UqUU7a43kaa4+pFdnNI3/ 85/GKJ5+0Qsy87ASZaetULm+pbD9fNAlxOYk6T5V52spr9a9BEsTiRGIwYCytKhjMopm JWQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=NhOP1VHvIBB5d28T2tT3GxzBfy+VaYz2/HetJUpGVaw=; b=RBTIrfLG9oY3DVIhvhxPewDbFGN3Yee1u9G38RjZVG3jYqxRxkkyTD2s5pOuek9+TM wjOGSFsG5a/KsBmZPv+pmiaaW4DDzcQRaRmz9sQLHdbkMbtBSYHzesd3CGojkiv4o3lh odN6yXu7VlyJcFfm7F0JhqVrd/DysF3I4FbgfAYJ/CkYG10Aot25QRipGl7EuoozFV2S cpI4HAPjqWGzKQciqS2Okohj9iXGjkts12ZyUCQrTvpu/OmV0FD7DLMUcsUr/Kx2mq4T zF8Lj2rgbm9GNdS8TliKGSfAK7DedcDSrkGtpW5PYXmLFcdgBOsx4DkAkfP1pZbk/OGt Zohg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aoQ3f+MsedTQcOq6+YqMTQVYTohXOWxWgsAoabJXOTx6/XjaA s+7zSJNQZz4GWgYALHrGhnfh1g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6MEY6Ccjwdp8DpFfhfXwGNKL5OOsh68s2sleqbYBIv7VQnxc4OlNkyQ2kVbx20PNacOJtdw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:118d:: with SMTP id t13mr3909610qvv.33.1613332639702; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s14sm9711330qtq.97.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:57:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2090D8CF-0B6F-4620-97BB-D761CD801644"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 14:57:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>, Fernando Gont <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
To: David Farmer <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 19:57:22 -0000

On Feb 13, 2021, at 7:45 PM, David Farmer <> wrote:
> I think I'm hearing, 
> 1. Rewrite RFC4007 to only discuss zone indexes for the Link-Local address on an interface, maybe rename then too. Junk the rest, it only confuses things.
> 2. Rewrite RFC4291 to only refer to Link Scope (for Link-Local Addresses and the Loop-Back Address) and Global Scope for all other Unicast addresses except the unspecified address, eliminate all inference to other unicast scopes and the size of scopes. All uniqueness for Link-Local address comes from IID uniqueness provided by DAD, and there should be no discussion of uniqueness regarding Global Scope in RFC4291, it is only discussed in RFC4007. Also, eliminate the discussion of IID scope. Leaving Multicast scope alone.
> However, unless we can agree on how to deal with the 64-bit boundary, or not to touch it, touching RFC4291 will only end in flames.
> Is it possible to do anything with RFC4007 without ending in flames?

From my perspective at least, this conversation has been really useful, but I don’t see a cause to rewrite any documents. Being forced to confront my assumptions as a result of Fernando’s questions resulted in me discovering that a lot of things I hadn’t realized were clearly specified are actually clearly specified. The dissonance between RFC 4193 and RFC 4007 is interesting, but RFC 6724 addresses this dissonance quite satisfactorily. It’s possible that there’s an opportunity to write a small ops document here to make clear how to populate the policy table automatically based on prefixes seen on an interface, but I don’t think we have a Really Big Problem to solve here.

If people are confused, it’s probably because they haven’t read these documents.