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

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 13 February 2021 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A363C3A0BB1 for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:32:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 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, 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 mJQw7GOxh5IJ for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 453853A0BB2 for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w19so2916173qki.13 for <>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:32:14 -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=kLzcuQCqWDJ0nWlJ9ML9+XF2d5t04LPd4rlcgSkJTV0=; b=vLdJDUByRJLP1thURSoaiwHE4P354t9dfbs+P/PZ84DSf567Nz/9FXgxYuwA8Md1hZ F6Bh11UqurbtAdNkvuZZ3igJNCDus0Oed2pDHuCAyhd/jBzO5S509JUIewasW7We9sf5 4oc9C13f22tbtAaLnNjWlz1DEkOyt0dG/9IGUZ9a3z4OHZxufVFE2w2oXrQPE/leWnAx BL/49bKMzl2qPqYbk5C06VOEfv/3ItXCWuevDs/S/9V1sKv7aRyt0+ZCSIYpQrOpCuZ2 jvUZKbYOvVjWVufViUWevNYw7K5YH79Mih1SuF01nSmRy2OAzXuG+pcppvK0EDqBm1+g tcvw==
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=kLzcuQCqWDJ0nWlJ9ML9+XF2d5t04LPd4rlcgSkJTV0=; b=sLBUao1auTeVtFSofu7w64YsDXjbXnqF/Axce7Z1BO31HasSoCqBL4bYS5oUsRsYmD pIk09x36UB7PpbI5cbaMd0xUFptpDcwML/3JZOgJ7sdtUcM0gmx61qsQIGgRHvi+Rii2 NytGasrVBKPUg6/flvi5CLQ9G41HaUOLaBGGUA9o+/DIiwxoqzTbJ4CFU30jKh3KkvL8 4gQu4I8ZKQtmCsP1d4MQEHNSY0o4NwZ/ied+JQPH6bE7kUoJNip0ezUnHVWyNICwMSJi Ij4Gj1LblcZiono6YxGzxGAVyfIyL1GbwECzbMN0HN4+5R5dnA2oa/POaeSYd151Q7zh VREA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339IETzA6nsUy8aRk/KjmxgpLafDLdQ+rZSWtDMRdpn6qK5zUom /FCqdFESNnKe40EDj7CEpkjE6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzLc7/6C1sigNi59sYbsBDBwASeNg3DWmLgQ1JnSY5O0mumAckgFujUjEbpu7f556KdmENW/w==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:992:: with SMTP id 140mr8589133qkj.349.1613244732686; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:32:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v75sm907090qkb.14.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:32:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C06FFDAA-B8F3-4A1D-A764-40CC058BF9F1"
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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 14:32:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Fernando Gont <>, Fred Baker <>, 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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 19:32:17 -0000

On Feb 13, 2021, at 2:25 PM, David Farmer <> wrote:
> Wait a minute! It doesn't say SOME addresses in the global scope are globally unique, it says ALL addresses in the global scope are globally unique. Unless each and every ULA address is globally unique, then ULA can't be global scope.
> And by what definition of global scope are the Local-Use IPv4/IPv6 Translation Prefix, the Discard-Only Prefix, and the IPv6 Benchmarking Prefix global scope?

I think we agreed that RFC 4007 makes some statements that seem incomplete or inapplicable to the present-day networks we all work with. One way to fix it is to add more scopes. Another way is to tweak the definition of the described scopes.

The problem with things like “admin scope” is that it doesn’t help me. Suppose an address is “admin scope.” Okay, how does my behavior change? Can you clearly state a rule that describes what my behavior should be?

If not, I claim it’s useless to define that scope.

Of course “my” could mean end systems, or routers, or users, or administrators, so that’s another terminology discussion to have…

So what I think “global scope” means is “there isn’t some context in which, by definition, this address is invalid.”