Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C464C1A8868 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 iwkYAj2Fowza for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CEE1A887E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t6LEJ1NY031412 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:19:01 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 589D720239F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5006F201FCB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.35]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t6LEIx1T011806 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:19:01 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <6153A91F-7E9A-4579-BA06-72964568D343@cisco.com>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55AE54D3.7070502@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:18:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6153A91F-7E9A-4579-BA06-72964568D343@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/GG-P1DFdtoF--NRD9rpFgrvkQbM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:19:05 -0000

1. Brian suggested to recommend that globals should be there on the
machines having ULAs as well, if I understand correctly.

But I think so only on some Hosts, mainly the Hosts of end users.

2. the ULA RFC suggests a ULA prefix can be generated out of a MAC
address.  That sixxs implementation does it.  Except it takes it too
serious: it does not accept a MAC address which is not a real MAC
address - in that oui.txt.  And random MAC addresses (for privacy)
certainly are not in that oui.txt.

I think this is an undesirable situation to be in: unable to generate
ULAs because the only tool out there (sixxs) can't refuses a copy paste
a MAC address from the widely used windows 7 laptops.

I am not sure what the problem is, but it's very good to have a very
easy way to generate ULAs.

3. in an enterprise deployment there was a problem of ULAs deployed in a
intra-network and another ULA space in another intra-network, of the
same enterprise.  So we wanted to make sure two things: the two ULA
spaces are distinct, or otherwise make sure the gateway router does not
route between the two intranets' ULAs (but yes, route between their
respective GUAs).   I am not sure how to translate that into advice,
because I am not sure how it will unfold in the near future.

Alex

Le 21/07/2015 16:02, Fred Baker (fred) a écrit :
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
>
>
"Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses", Bing Liu, Sheng
> Jiang, 2015-05-03
>
> This draft came up from the floor this afternoon. I think we need
> some concentrated constructive conversation regarding it - we have
> had a lot of the other kind.
>
> What issues do we need to address to complete it. and what specific
> recommendations would that include?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>