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

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 18 February 2021 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC003A18C0 for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:32:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVxWkeMACJPX for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D4193A18B9 for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:32:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47644280260; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:32:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 18:32:19 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:32:47 -0000


On 18/2/21 18:16, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, the intent in this Section wasn't to change that.  The text was 
meant that, when discussing how "scope" affects other properties of IPv6 
addresses, for all practical purposes ULAs have limited scope.

This text predates draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope which effectively does 
try to formally update the scope of ULAs.

P.S.: I will update the text before the cut-off.

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492