Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update might break current ULA+IPv4 hostnames

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Sun, 12 November 2023 19:48 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 0EB11C151522 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:48:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 OC5aDj0rYOSg for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:48:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A750C151099 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ST35P5z4fz9vYVs for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 19:48:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p8.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p8.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tm8tUV4x8MAy for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:48:25 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-lf1-f71.google.com (mail-lf1-f71.google.com [209.85.167.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p8.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ST35P2WKXz9vYVm for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:48:25 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p8.oit.umn.edu 4ST35P2WKXz9vYVm
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p8.oit.umn.edu 4ST35P2WKXz9vYVm
Received: by mail-lf1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-507d2e150c2so3713680e87.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1699818503; x=1700423303; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5ysemGDM0S5r4f0PwRcH7g3ozjPFYP+8rfMbTx0dvww=; b=LMq1+Lhk9VMmlmwwn0/mpLOMSlWTCjkFCIH6ptDBtrrW9S/AEj3UDJGHLkF68phkAu 0shmeeji5f4WWLbgxBDQlgcqAxw5EVjZXx7L6u/c9TkbSsPxCmSocU0Ugc6hb5QNemgx dmMQWQCRjUBilrVTXtgRITKXeMUzDj88eoirckNB615Mgo8GBGMVsMKshnlJGmexuv/b TKZlKoGGRdGAExB5Trxhj09AiPH/S0EgAjesuBew8EVuogbkhAdNBli1HVG+6BcGZL6I neC+xvpj+pGLNQWHktlq7sgIQuxXf2tiY0mq9aQZfnC4y1S7S3VR98odVCKGMRLr/fH7 UOHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699818503; x=1700423303; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=5ysemGDM0S5r4f0PwRcH7g3ozjPFYP+8rfMbTx0dvww=; b=fqkXj2oMx0ENsogKkLEw5CXxTJScvp+rVmE+zjaPFJbJdLP8pk8Bs+44eKAOAFhXjU o1Woc3lwT9lj/pzLo02CJ4kCmS4LCA71OKpv+ZGLTPCG11/0gPFn3ImNMIFj1CH/v2vE qKrz9N75LyFCGMii/4LbkaullFHMotXwc0S3bCquBCMv8sf68y9V/txKJvriOIhWkwRH m0/wKiXyzI4y9VBRucnaAcFEVxYbgr79RaZslTYoOyMFnmYrLgcIT3KMnzuQkEv6RiG9 ofQC5ZiZr5QBynP5HWSP2UtSOKxHtOcTiZHwzuvtmu5B6uz66BOsdelKt7pHEC1fmfQj z+jA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyNelkkCNSrOY/7rMsjNmZlu8bFi6qKgGpBdDvBNonq/UNDwup7 A8u2X3pu1ukdGbDJ2dSw6X2emFYtsNDRJo70/OuawvJ6yqjubV19UjN3DL4fKV53guhdSkIo41J BXrfO62Gg5PAy3XKMEtpqkBy4Mo6qAZajWg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2f6:b0:50a:73a8:ae4f with SMTP id m22-20020a05651202f600b0050a73a8ae4fmr3147560lfq.29.1699818503100; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:48:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGaO60AJqkaCSEl+vNSiKreraj/JKuErKShQDAauA7j1APIvBv0GDndWWDB+FK8/lrEup0IE+/ar6Q6glrI5iM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2f6:b0:50a:73a8:ae4f with SMTP id m22-20020a05651202f600b0050a73a8ae4fmr3147555lfq.29.1699818502583; Sun, 12 Nov 2023 11:48:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO42Z2ypqtQT85iccM0N59885Zp+o+X-Lx34CjvaAf+JH9go3w@mail.gmail.com> <52796575-6400-4017-BA5C-4746B187B285@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <52796575-6400-4017-BA5C-4746B187B285@employees.org>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:48:06 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau2rfT8AmWzsLmHT0scB5vsLF4X3E+cprX8shwaxJAwM2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan=40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000079d820609f9d606"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DeDlMkh98SLDfQoiwKs2bQ-spwQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update might break current ULA+IPv4 hostnames
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 19:48:31 -0000

Ole,

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:37 AM Ole Trøan <otroan=
40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Matk,
>
> > On 12 Nov 2023, at 12:19, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Normally, Host A's ULA address should have a path through the local
> > network to Host B's ULA address and vice versa, so Host A and B's ULA
> > addresses should be preferred over Host A and Host B's GUA addresses.
>
> Come to think about it. Wouldn’t RFC6724 also fail in the MPMH case?
>

Yes, it will fail in some cases but succeed in others.


> Source host A with GUA1+GUA2 (from ISPA AND ISPB)
> And destination host B with GUA3.
>
> 6724 will return the source address with the longest matching prefix to
> GUA3. So only one of these:
>
> {GUA1, GUA3}
> {GUA2, GUA3}
>
> The SA determines exit path, so depending on which ISP is down.
> Communication will fail.
> Redundancy is the whole point of multi-homing…
>

If there is a soft failure of the provider of the selected SA, there will
be a failure. If there is a hard enough failure to cause the withdrawal of
one of the RAs, then redundancy will work.


> The other case I am concerned about is the one where within a single
> network multiple routers make up their own ULA and use that to assign
> addresses to directly connected hosts but do not participate in routing. We
> then have multiple disjointed ULA domains within the network. With RFC7078
> and SNAC routers I am not sure if we can avoid that. This would possibly
> have been cleaner with site-locals.
>

In many cases you refer to, the disjoint ULA domains are likely to be
ULA-only domains. If there are ULA-only domains, there will only be ULA
destinations to try, and they will be reachable or not. When we mix ULA,
GUA, and IPv4, things get really complicated. ULA-only domains should be
relatively straightforward.

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
===============================================