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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 4:38 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Feb 14, 2021, at 4:54 PM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> So when I read "uniquely identifying interfaces anywhere on the Internet",
> that suggests to me the entirety of the Internet, basically anywhere and
> everywhere, whether or not I can actually successfully get packets there or
> not.  I think that statement needs to be qualified or limited by
> reachability in some way. It doesn't need to specifically mention
> local-use, but I think it clarifies the issue.  The fact that someone else
> on the other side of the planet or even across the street is using the same
> ULA prefixes as me doesn't really matter because I can't get packets there,
> but that isn't that what that statement says.
>
>
> The problem is, then you have to say what “local” means, and it doesn’t
> mean anything specific. And, specifically, scope right now can be used as a
> definitional meaning. If you add “site scope,” it doesn’t work, because
> it’s no longer definitional—it’s operational. Trying to do the same thing
> with ULA will have the same outcome.
>

Ok, don't talk about "local" then, but I think we need to caveat "uniquely
identifying interfaces anywhere on the Internet", with reachability in some
way, this is an important caveat for RFC4193. I don't see what it huts
include it in RFC4007. How about "uniquely identifying interfaces anywhere
reachable on the Internet".


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================