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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 439233A0CDC; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:27:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, 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 28YBZkPX-0Pq; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043F73A0CC7; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 06:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.129] (unknown [186.19.8.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1567284F4D; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 14:27:18 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <CAN-Dau344H7xgD0Q_O54c=R08zFRFjToO8BHt=ssauxgEH7ynA@mail.gmail.com> <EFF2CF9D-147B-4E7F-9080-633A24FDA666@fugue.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <684e3296-a9d9-c899-9964-d80d693c1971@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 11:04:43 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EFF2CF9D-147B-4E7F-9080-633A24FDA666@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/schPMWFJwpNo5qO-Q0s-RinNxTc>
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 14:27:27 -0000

Hi, Ted,

On 6/1/21 09:17, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:38 PM, David Farmer 
> <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org 
> <mailto:farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> I think this is the right direction the previous draft indirectly 
>> defined a new scope "non-global", I much prefer explicitly defining a 
>> new local scope.
> 
> Actually, I think you’ve got it right here: the scope is “non-global.”

Indeed. But then, link-locals are non-global, too.



>> I would add something like the following to better define the 
>> relationship between the three scopes;
>>
>>     The boundary of the link-local scope is strongly defined, limiting
>>     the extent of the link-local scope to an individual link. However,
>>     in contrast, the boundary of the local scope is weakly defined, it
>>     is amorphous and imprecise. In some instances, the extent of the
>>     local scope can be a single site, in other instances, a group of
>>     unrelated sites, a single organization, or even a cooperating
>>     group of organizations. Furthermore, the extent of an individual
>>     instance of the local scope doesn't necessarily remain constant,
>>     it may expand or contract over time as the local situation
>>     dictates, for example when two organizations merge. Nevertheless,
>>     the extent of the local scope doesn’t encompass the entirety of
>>     the Internet which the global scope does.
> 
> There is at least one obvious problem with this definition: the term 
> “local.” ULAs aren’t really local, despite the name. 

FWIW, I suggested "local" as the scope as given the "L" in "ULA", it was 
the obvious choice. I don't mind using any other term. What really 
matters is to use consistent terminology.

So I guess possible options (other than "local scope") are:

* private scope?
* organizational scope?
* administrative scope?



> So I don’t really object to your text, but I do object to the name 
> “local.” How about “explicit”? That is, the scope of a ULA is explicit, 
> in the sense that it must be _made_ explicit by the user(s) of the ULA? 

mm.. not really. As a user of ULAs, it's impossible to tell if the scope 
ends up being just one link (think a CPE that locally generates a ULA 
prefix and advertises it in the only internal net/link), or multisite.


If not "local" or "explicit", maybe one of the others suggestions above 
would work?

Thanks!

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492