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

Richard Patterson <> Wed, 06 January 2021 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B533A0EBE for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:30:02 -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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gcufr-325IPY for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14D53A0EA4 for <>; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 07:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i18so3115897ioa.1 for <>; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:30:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=O7L9LgvfK4hgI5B/LXK8N1uy/dWphdiXI5FDOydoy04=; b=OrlGgfBIWTreWb9phjW2WEFAH8BthF/m3q4GZOu6sSj1qLbEbQGSPEa86IFny7q5pn 7A330dkL7wPNwM/ofDBrvxA4UPehCP0PklTQZUzrvVsDeR7fhpIAow+KUKaq1wbEwqwH Go+4j/fAJUga24LQi8QhmD0kKx9Toq27jFgKIGdjUuzgvzGobkO16Hj/qPWUNc7xyR9C +utRSvgEhNcQIcMSAz5yrB+eSY9ugCFRmDW+C9ZOSQSl1ADQIiI+AOQCwb4HPB44hPHI XZ4wS+f1/eVJfynWaM+6iI17RhfID1QjUJz98V0A11jxz+tGiN5KUEz/gAHY4X3lE4xK 6Dxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O7L9LgvfK4hgI5B/LXK8N1uy/dWphdiXI5FDOydoy04=; b=hqhnkmfwgqN41sQ/tTZA21Yl1zxfIobvzcAr/6xy9iMHCYzNVLLLFbfe2K6oYZB/Fa QE+1bhuEKAizovXNdRsfgz69ay0LBs0oOc+LwvSwEQAl15y5YgOIzc9dN16jYk+uu86u 3jH2i7C5CRxPXkB81BPMEhH5WMbfW9MRUM4EfzgE9tB2Ociqz9bfTYf/ajuo3IuFm/NO OmFa6sKzA8DXyf52wxWd2to8I9wqWATrUjLPVWuuAndavGVcDB6lOKJOHNBR3L6SM/PJ smYikIhT+2nNovNLgW6rENxeOq5vpnPHldz8QEh96jDbV0RIAznH6pYqv+Jx48wEJwnK cpvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YPn23RyfGpd3xU+1aAOR2OYyTzm5ywuJMrigqRYE5l+FmgQSo ZKqz7b0mqLMvDYEPX+h+s9Q4AQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw10KMDlSVnigRnEPGKbTVZC0oDFX2T6VN1zCLrd4/58k0zz0sOC3V+kvnJRBG/pmjOtjCr/A==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:3541:: with SMTP id y1mr4044875jae.66.1609946999621; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a15sm2286379ilh.10.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d9so3090202iob.6; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2243:: with SMTP id m3mr4107610jas.115.1609946998679; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 07:29:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Richard Patterson <>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 15:29:47 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
Cc: 6man WG <>, Fernando Gont <>, IPv6 Operations <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6af3405b83cfe1e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:30:03 -0000

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 15:14, Philip Homburg <>

> Applications should not do widely different things if they encouter a ULA.
But they do.
Some OSes will see the presence of a ULA address on an interface, and start
sending AAAA queries, some will not.
Some applications will see a ULA destination address and simply ignore it,
preferring the IPv4 destination address returned.

We need to ask the question why this is happening, and if the answer is
"They're doing it wrong", great, let's point them at the existing RFCs and
educate them, but if not...... we need to do something, and I think this
I-D is a good starting point for WG discussion at least.

We have policy tables for source and destination address selection. Those
> should be used to decide what to do.

As above, it's not just about simple routing table lookups, or source
address selection. But I do also think there's room for improvement here as
well, with a new scope for ULA.