IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533393A1890 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:16:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Hp3mc4foMIT4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED293A188C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id z190so3598667qka.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:16:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=iIi3AcQnUDrTOzujSDMtBoFdC5n10Eywl9aBU0nZPis=; b=rHUQOJR/Q8q+wAY7k6k7pl0upvNNDWMmhYq3/H9Cy62pMDtGzhJ1WywytQHFRVr8eJ VByKznBeE9MUKmhZFhjukpuKcei+ol8cl7kFAiARHl6u40tQKuO9syfl6P59wX9xngbX /zN5cRYTJ5n1tkd/qUm8XUALyFOI/wIlFHkVgTBcxMcdGba5r6R9k/Pm2mt5QLLMW8Xn Zd1ie/PxP0U9/Es8qFFK8t5QoIqlzY9j2mH/tumCV0D3dWRq+AzMD0rGeal/+RVfC7g+ KXawjsYWR9HoOLTTY/gTYFcpUc49leeqUWLfldHpZv23YApAwb2UCzQ4Nx8x6dkgAHeJ H0Uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=iIi3AcQnUDrTOzujSDMtBoFdC5n10Eywl9aBU0nZPis=; b=k0qkmyPtz52WiWQbQjUd00+baaI7be6UWZnHmL0JaFjiFva72GozRLtsBtjTqQfi/i 25PnAiKu8QUpcqxeSDooxSuSGEaCPbCSjije4Q55fDQyTi1gbEz2+PYhxVghpVNIiQAe O4wfOpJIUHel/qJRPnwIME+YIOIGh/Tm0lSUJopzKzwK9w39yWyX036+FMiBbg1iqFKn OMycva1wxLpFdvaKQsBWZizVpiZc96urlLBB6cKIonl2SMMigwJTDW3Fof5ArSfQ1UR3 kL5aJX2UwTpzGM6bwIgoVKyrq9pv5q1SGNG2QeWENj7vfqQdx/Qy2+6RZXzqdlD67aPG cBMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533nYbwX+94W1MbroKe/8R2TUdwOP8zsaX+PRVDXuYLW/XrSc057 SeIs8PLDrZHkh4l6/ptDjfBm7SYodtIb9g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNgWKgA6zIch4ktM5rcIomA1A/xb+xAsJ3jJMTvT9oUXKVrSkVHpKvD68bRSlJmflIMbCm8Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e844:: with SMTP id a65mr6241939qkg.397.1613683006007; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r1sm2692726qtd.57.2021.02.18.13.16.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:16:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <37012643-4F63-4FB6-979E-7C3BDD13DCD0@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C2508C0-625B-4F12-A767-5DEF866CAEAA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.32\))
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:16:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <36ba7456-210c-0626-5ec6-147538e49e5d@si6networks.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <36ba7456-210c-0626-5ec6-147538e49e5d@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-khNQ0Nb5MLLTTBkMpQQa-RREc4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:16:49 -0000

This is wrong:

   Therefore, ULAs are not globally meaningful and thus, for most (if
   not all) practical purposes, ULAs can be considered to have non-
   global scope.  For this reason, ULAs are treated as non-global scope
   addresses, even when from a specifications point of view they have
   global scope.

ULAs are explicitly global in scope. Please don’t try to change this in an informational document. The other text in this section is fine.

> On Feb 12, 2021, at 4:50 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> In the aforementioned document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations), we have tried to do at least three things:
> 
> 1) Look at what we have and try to discuss things from an architectural
>   perspective
> 
> 2) Analyze the implications of #1 (whether operations, security,
>   privacy, etc.)
> 
> 3) Find missing gaps that currently prevent us from fully leveraging
>   IPv6 addressing.
> 
> 
> Part of what we've found as doing #3 above is that:
> 
>  * There are shortcomings associated with the current APIs that prevent
>    better usage of IPv6 addresses
> 
>  * Multi-router/multi-prefix routing seems to be broken.
>    RFC8028 would be a fundamental starting point in the right
>    direction... but I believe there's more to do in this area.
> 
> 
> In that light, we'd like to hear further comments on our document. And, in particular, we're interested to hear if :
> 
>  * there are any operational implications of IPv6 addressing that we
>    have missed, or,
> 
>  * there's anything related to IPv6 addressing that you consider to
>    be currently broken or problematic, that is missing in our I-D.
> 
> 
> Thoughts on the current contents of the I-D are, of course, also very welcome!
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email