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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sat, 13 February 2021 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 9CC213A0B91 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:26:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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=umn.edu
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 gTNrqAOgQPw4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B078E3A0B8C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DdL2C0LkYz9vBtG for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 19:26:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KTXqH2nGTwJR for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:26:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DdL2B461jz9vBt1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:26:09 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4DdL2B461jz9vBt1
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4DdL2B461jz9vBt1
Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id t9so2519177edd.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:26:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iRW8Aws8U6aqn/+9leN332NH3buFV0TZV6OhJoxmXXw=; b=AD153Ad0y+2QI/VDUDM6rXbTbmSWmosUtwoeXe5mko5NMZIYnHUR4zMvpEPShUhSxj b/I6hpFKYhMwcRNoq+phYoKU395BxF2ME5BIv+/9Imn9bh7afhMaGJWxOCKcJOBrJjct LBT0/vaS4nixoiqy8QscQOUk1feLR66EIig7/N2kXsYygpAU+BEW+Obclt63u70aOnJW qnpdXDPIzvWSF5YkJ8Hakr3AlVuN/81R4BW/u7aq0tXIBui/K9EatxxLm+OnPb2FRXJR 5380o7ZI80FHbqIeoVBvM+t+PdFTa1EUDiXJPffsxOPgMM0U9b7hL76RPMIVTapJwJPP ojNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iRW8Aws8U6aqn/+9leN332NH3buFV0TZV6OhJoxmXXw=; b=HhEv3cC7GzD8ERcBsSIXues+uV9yM+PYb4r83SI2b/F7vnmgISOdhfWHwlcpE41aTT cZQr3szp0dYdJ2mSIl9Ucn+BHUy3VicZreYQSNowTlUNW6iMcBFQFbTHrIUfXmiuIldl j5tEKA+x9gKdxdlqqwF8sHUtthsKpee+lh/9Ce7wdoU71eWIB6pLbIle/B2SlQ80cnCQ HvFJESZovp7VUDXUy0wkdFLBHWHsK9xK1iuUVacOnUtl1xTQuMjnRX38yHFmTtac3bLz K+1oFtSMfbUn2+UrqkfQwx+fA9W+QUGNbOXNAkTp0SiLpSFdvKJF/wLbYX1fGhtNArPe 4o+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZPvunrLN6XcVEbmglYPTfQMkWu4RgAsfq7aPtUdzF1Yo8iivL UbrUvHs1RWHMCiP3y/QxKHWgf7dMYGAjyQBtJOE7yFy6pjhrXdCs/I9s+5QeASHJlKdCII+rBtT T0/oKLhgTBobRV71V+dVHxvxpSg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8612:: with SMTP id o18mr8560648ejx.435.1613244366945; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:26:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6XiDeqfDdMMufW6IDWH4wh2ZbWWclY1VFhim+dX2/Ucpnm8itpUkjS8ZzNI/4x2F6nxthuorqUS8HbIsia9o=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8612:: with SMTP id o18mr8560627ejx.435.1613244366552; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 11:26:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <F4E00812-E366-4520-AE17-7BB46E28D575@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3iOjjU+FLpdtA7nqfKRX+sjjSanAU8U-O3pH-k5nSoig@mail.gmail.com> <a3fbfb94-90ae-961c-a2ab-33ade27e074e@si6networks.com> <5D1FBC37-1024-4300-AFA5-19F329E9F1D1@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D1FBC37-1024-4300-AFA5-19F329E9F1D1@fugue.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:25:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau02FHbrWghcYXEGURFreT0JnY_QpVu2btpj94im3K30PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006799cf05bb3cb9b4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DKi5VyhxbeCLyCZBcN6GuQGJTz4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 19:26:14 -0000

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 8:54 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
> Well, whether we call it out or not, as per RFC4007:
>
>              scope(LL) < scope(ULA) < scope(GUA)
>
> So it's more about acknowledging facts than about introducing or needing a
> new scope.  The same applies to the addresses you mentioned before.
>
>
> No. scope(LL) < scope(ULA) and scope(LL) < scope(GUA) but scope(ULA) ?
> scope(GUA). That is, any particular ULA may or may not be global in scope.
>

Wait a minute! It doesn't say SOME addresses in the global scope are
globally unique, it says ALL addresses in the global scope are globally
unique. Unless each and every ULA address is globally unique, then ULA
can't be global scope.

And by what definition of global scope are the Local-Use IPv4/IPv6
Translation Prefix, the Discard-Only Prefix, and the IPv6 Benchmarking
Prefix global scope?

If all IPv6 addresses except the unspecified address, the loopback address,
and Link-Local addresses are global scope, then either the words "scope" or
"unique" are meaningless.


> The problem with admin scope is that it’s not a definitional scope, but
> rather an operational scope. Which may be the problem—we are using the term
> “scope” when that’s not specific enough—we could mean “by definition” or
> “in practice” scope, but we aren’t making that clear.  Of course, these are
> illustrative terms—I’m not saying we should switch to this terminology.
>

I think you are saying the idea of "IPv6 address scope" is meaningless
then, at least using the current interface uniqueness criterion.

Furthermore, since ANY GUA can be an Anycast address even GUA technically
fails the uniqueness criterion as stated.

If you are going to insist there is no third scope in between Link-Local
and Global Scope, then we should simply discard the uniqueness criterion as
any meaningful part of the definition of IPv6 address scope.

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================