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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 13, 2021, at 7:45 PM, David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]> 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.