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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 17 February 2021 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700573A1B38 for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:14:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 9JfR43VQ4Odo for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D335D3A1B20 for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z190so7329483qka.9 for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:14:48 -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=O/KvNMlYx9qWG14jS6DSVsVKbWdZ8OnJcqBtBJlifFg=; b=ixQDOb2g6GMBjpEGZGRdig8pCJP/5OVoVMyIFn37BqXtUwI/reUxxFy6ECiKUjpr2p WdEqLndWb4+1beEGh6NmduBunaYve5vlqfS9jgfMy4d5KUqgmJNr5GGF3eTWN/k9KOvM mENq5AGBrqPQUAg/QSssdepW/DqTCY54mHBmSeNSkKleH2BsE4YE5xPckN5rJMddJfUu OG3R68rVex6g7r3cawQEuOjM8TOWDflHgd5cME6iyde6n9Ys9E5z0wMODSkhLgvVIJl0 5pmKqxFywBL/xy0xeW+XtzVQvXI5qaI9etQ5w59mEzUh27NiWwD8FzTzCQi8mqlW5ZnK GsGg==
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=O/KvNMlYx9qWG14jS6DSVsVKbWdZ8OnJcqBtBJlifFg=; b=f1NC4+fRtkK7GaSkDogPxWwZ+rPy1axIRgN0Semvo2YwBWw4LENIk4pnKPUA3v1WBl jWeLpCZ+0L8Dquef0rxNJJKX3pN9myKQ1dUJR7mhx5EhGPviSyOmNsTNRURpcmvhOQ5V /qcIhs3rmzRNPK8Y3phpePQfWgBB5ettfWilAOA0eLiCsGw4QJYPHy+MoFH8uU012hao QYtHBKug1cA5Q3Ez5OwMf7rWXRtVZ/QirLWMcs3C1d/6YpmCNb3wDtuH4yQBIlHfYXzb 57oSTbJBoRDFAgA1OUd6UDHFtebbjR8NGz8I98cHLurY+82yv9KvyQZP16QoEGIF8GdF 8Bpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532sZpg3eLFo4h6NjaT4ajupw4ksZErsd/McNCPhst6xkfdEmkZb 2zDy/4uoOtW+PdixECGUWPW5EQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzr3yOXxp5xD1AJl0SxuPBA8y/STjoGLaTunWCTCBaAzTrPc34tN14LAVStXwxxCInz9U7X6A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1523:: with SMTP id n3mr25829394qkk.85.1613578487786; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id d1sm1799134qkj.123.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:14:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_41CE4E9B-B2D6-47D8-86CD-F979ADFE5A4B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:14:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
To: Yucel Guven <>
References: <> <> <> <> <YCvkYXwTrSdQoe8Q@Space.Net> <> <YCvsVVkQc5zDJQVh@Space.Net> <> <YCvw1DC/eOKmoEYc@Space.Net> <> <YCv6lQDiseMUCOFd@Space.Net> <> <> <> <>
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: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:14:51 -0000

On Feb 17, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Yucel Guven <> wrote:
>>> It might be nice to be able to somehow configure the network to treat one link as preferred over another, e.g. if one connection is expensive. Of course, since the user isn’t likely to know to configure that, it needs to be automatic, and I don’t think an automatic mechanism has been specified.
>> This was a quite deliberate aspect of ATM, at least, the intention was. PNNI to set up a route that took into account the QoS needs for that session.

This wasn’t really what I meant. QoS is kind of notorious for not being deployed anywhere except inside of walled gardens because it’s too hard to operate in a way that doesn’t get gamed. It’s certainly not something that could be done automatically.

When I think about how to deploy this on a home network, that’s exactly the calculus that comes up: suppose I advertise a backup router that’s for critical traffic. How do I ensure that only critical traffic is sent over it? Well, first I need to know what “critical traffic” is. Who’s going to tell me? The user? Not likely. The service provider? Yes, definitely. Their traffic is definitely critical. And at this point in the calculus I realize that this is one of those strange games where the only winning move is not to play…