Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 22 July 2015 at 00:18, Alexandru Petrescu
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 1. Brian suggested to recommend that globals should be there on the
> machines having ULAs as well, if I understand correctly.
>
> But I think so only on some Hosts, mainly the Hosts of end users.
>
> 2. the ULA RFC suggests a ULA prefix can be generated out of a MAC
> address.  That sixxs implementation does it.  Except it takes it too
> serious: it does not accept a MAC address which is not a real MAC
> address - in that oui.txt.  And random MAC addresses (for privacy)
> certainly are not in that oui.txt.
>
> I think this is an undesirable situation to be in: unable to generate
> ULAs because the only tool out there (sixxs) can't refuses a copy paste
> a MAC address from the widely used windows 7 laptops.
>

sixxs is not the only ULA generator out there.

Here's 4 others that showed up when I did a search for "ula generator"

http://unique-local-ipv6.com/

https://www.ultratools.com/tools/rangeGenerator

http://www.simpledns.com/private-ipv6.aspx

http://www.kame.net/~suz/gen-ula.html

I'm using random local MAC addresses on all of this host's interfaces,
yet a number of the above links generated an automatic ULA prefix for
me without issue (and I can't tell if they're IPv6 accessible and
might have used my IPv6 IID as a MAC address after removing FF:FE
etc.)

> I am not sure what the problem is, but it's very good to have a very
> easy way to generate ULAs.
>
> 3. in an enterprise deployment there was a problem of ULAs deployed in a
> intra-network and another ULA space in another intra-network, of the
> same enterprise.  So we wanted to make sure two things: the two ULA
> spaces are distinct, or otherwise make sure the gateway router does not
> route between the two intranets' ULAs (but yes, route between their
> respective GUAs).   I am not sure how to translate that into advice,
> because I am not sure how it will unfold in the near future.
>

RFC4193 recommends that by default ULA addressed packets and routes
are not leaked outside of the ULA /48 assigned site.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193#section-4.3

> Alex
>
> Le 21/07/2015 16:02, Fred Baker (fred) a écrit :
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
>>
>>
> "Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses", Bing Liu, Sheng
>>
>> Jiang, 2015-05-03
>>
>> This draft came up from the floor this afternoon. I think we need
>> some concentrated constructive conversation regarding it - we have
>> had a lot of the other kind.
>>
>> What issues do we need to address to complete it. and what specific
>> recommendations would that include?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops