Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Mon, 25 April 2022 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 39B31C1D4672; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.299
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.998, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.998, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AaptkbOmCaB0; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2216C157B3E; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id p8so16175679pfh.8; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fGMlFomtq/w5tXbjWtl4LuHVAoEporiTM7UkCgABKrE=; b=oqx8+KtgkXlB4J7TGp/T5xJ3Z28zCafj9wGYjmJlb3rNLlDDj8G1p5n3YCh6Bu46NW 1hruMV3N3OhbsnNyFpyIvSHSQie6AGmHzzBOPexI9ayZP/U/X/QU6h7Oeg7uqutdH2Tu H2XBq1t+tLgerCH/v9npiQOTt9KMnVEkqTDfFfph22JorShwp2Vsk+ZyNc8Nuee5BE+B GOmnNQ4EyVeAXF55qRaoEpl+5djO5htUx9LjusPs1cW8h+9okzPYx7xraRuSSqYLTT/a PhJdswAWwETLIS9pVSLBYW0NT9cAT1XmFzKlC4KTmkhGgNnMjTfURBhDvuKp2/7E5R0o 3eFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fGMlFomtq/w5tXbjWtl4LuHVAoEporiTM7UkCgABKrE=; b=we3o7/XB87xQJ/5NwFcBPlQW/IWwh5ZyhNgt8a+9EMZkkePLHLfZnrpN7W9YbVPWwJ 4iKoM4tedVzbBfFc3qhvsN/A+CBRxcSn3qJaV9nsY8+JzLyxpLl1CAWPR5+qP8+rXbe2 28/DB7ye6IXOqFgQbKkIqqmf46CVkifMO5e1TSaa9xScCacK4MSxRNuDUlG3k1flP/vO 0dgQ6/KA0N+mmcdTuSSIZfnXTYKEnT9SYym1RL/cGTZumvIQaTxUdlEvKl5RlMDjW6We A81EjQkc4bvoSqv9Jq2kjUbimpdJ2tC2xJahEIcOqeEEx0CnLQ1D0hyQm8/1hBr1RpvL Y1pA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530qffUQEVGafQjQSyuC5G5HszWMLS6H9lbKbplrOTIA9is79TWe NP60MjXOwEexzh97a3VDtbneZJ5d5L1+/Z8ASxQJKqB3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLbGMH8ETmaPFOZcERMXpD7J/kpxeuf+mEcMdxxBFTQVak66ymg4wKQvZc7FB9vXSBiUDybK6g/7puYrcX83M=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:198f:b0:50d:4279:3320 with SMTP id d15-20020a056a00198f00b0050d42793320mr6426877pfl.22.1650926620030; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM5+tA8WvjvWirxqE6kQ9LQAG0NcpWyCLGVooB=G7gZ9ETb2zQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220424172743.GA218999@fg-networking.de> <CAKD1Yr1v0Tkh+pWD-ts=PL3gZf7Qj6OHW6Cuvj8iGcSSMibjew@mail.gmail.com> <20220425100310.GF67548@fg-networking.de> <CAPt1N1=XedJ7tY9pKDS3LvDMak6iPsK9fA=oF7Z0KkmGcA6-_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=XedJ7tY9pKDS3LvDMak6iPsK9fA=oF7Z0KkmGcA6-_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:43:27 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2ydhe3hVOqSaN814hYh3oF3yG_du+gRkg6yD5haCqDnLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bcbb7305dd824e17"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5Uak2txv5nsDambAoAW2EM_HDHc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:43:41 -0000

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 21:45 Ted Lemon, <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Apr 25, 2022, at 06:03, Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de>
> wrote:
>
> And all that would probably not preclude constructing a different
> scenario where choosing GUA over ULA as source address would break
> connectivity.
>
>
> The question is not what possible scenarios are there, but what scenarios
> do we want to address with default behavior versus what scenarios can we
> only address with managed behavior. So e.g. not using longest-match for
> ULAs with different global identifiers sounds like a good default behavior,
> but obviously will break in some scenarios; in these scenarios, clearly we
> need support for configuring source address selection (which we already
> know how to do). Preferring GUA source address over ULA makes sense by
> default, I think, even though it is not always going to be the right thing
> to do.
>


Defeats a significant purpose of ULAs.

RFC4193:

4.2 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4193#section-4.2>.
Renumbering and Site Merging

   The use of Local IPv6 addresses in a site results in making
   communication that uses these addresses independent of renumbering a
   site's provider-based global addresses.



> Thus I would rather suggest to consider if making tracking which
> gateways advertised which prefixes mandatory would be a better
> approach.
>
>
> That's nice, and again would probably produce better default behavior. But
> I suspect it doesn't solve as many problems as you're hoping it will. E.g.
> what happens if the link you're connected to is one hop away from the link
> to which both of your upstream providers are connected? Now you have one
> router advertising everything, so this doesn't help.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>