Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 05 August 2022 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 12ABAC157B56 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 64pCdEeNZswR for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) (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 492AAC15C524 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id y11so2596366qvn.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc; bh=DENmH61wOUpQWeYO+jdEYCm1UizGgqU1NsVvWxi6EWk=; b=ihqfv1K7YvXQWk/KSYl+yq/fnoLth7LfoNv5wZ3TUpEtgBQ6R+7FIC6pR02fiow3C3 9i3yI6Ejytsl1sssjOxIwXa0WYHfmkXhf5G2OWJx8OQGXUH7EqcvRHTuoLaB2I2djLUa /0cT2uJbsZOX6eRrPia9hT9jyiR00iUXz0aCkxycGRuMkDYcNKOTBPlEHhVnuFTPrO9t fPs9OinrTTquwR+eXx8+f16Wy4eMzUMZLedvm6QVGTTMm8PqKfRANtDL3H3XFpYaKJai dj7zx8jDNch0X+bCBz337UGL4I24fEfcYYAK+4U/4x4h0Et3IlfuLeG/jWU9holhZt7c tt1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=DENmH61wOUpQWeYO+jdEYCm1UizGgqU1NsVvWxi6EWk=; b=tWoyID1WMOYHRSh563uafxGtU9cFPVGNSKzDMw7KD83W+CsVl5OkQUQCN88avJdgWT YPaDiAiYiyoPopm2REAymA3DrgkKhMs9QDKGD2DfbVjkwJUwBUtbiNWo/KiSKRSnbcsS Eflc4u3iiRKeyCBMN7oRjxWY5mUZpZZEJYYtTgbkySpVTG6X/qdUSvvc0cjmQIZHTiH/ aosYXRl/nWIlh7uFrLQwmoT7UU6XJQ879TW8an5J7Rpcj6etyO4E84HyVwkA1X4YHCgL aXchvfm8XyBZd0JoKQjkDnnJLQ0uSyLi1rNLfDEqbVIkvxKdNCTQdUfpRUuoqQazJjXe IAcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2FGeVcpNKduunZTeK3iPLViEK9xtGxgC/w/O/3N4vvk6PmfqD/ BLF+QqjRXQY+b0VOmXR4YA/zKBtnhHht+g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5TR9WodjDqQthVAeXd2ZXqPjvy75R+rZEH7EpZU9gU25m06uI/1cOpqVKevSOLHhWRH6LBZw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5189:b0:477:3ee2:d471 with SMTP id kl9-20020a056214518900b004773ee2d471mr7242525qvb.120.1659733400964; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:18b:300:3380:85df:98f2:8343:dce5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q6-20020a37f706000000b006b5fe1c376fsm3376259qkj.131.2022.08.05.14.03.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 17:03:19 -0400
Message-Id: <49960F2B-3499-40E7-AB50-322E860FC4C1@fugue.com>
References: <cba8bd56-8de2-2dcc-5b54-b7cfada8408d@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <cba8bd56-8de2-2dcc-5b54-b7cfada8408d@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (19F77)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/I-_gSXoGq1BlDSuFzjW-vAPlVKM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion
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: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 21:03:26 -0000

Doesn’t the source and destination address selection RFC, which is arguably an IPv6 RFC, change this?

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 5, 2022, at 4:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 06-Aug-22 04:08, David Farmer wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 4:45 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote
>>    This may be an unexpected behavior, but I still prefer using global IPv4 addresses (not RFC 1918) rather than ULA. The I-D should cover this.
>> Currently, the RFC6724 default table doesn't distinguish between global IPv4 addresses and local RFC1918 IPv4 addresses. They are treated the same. They are both part of the same entry (::ffff:0:0/96         35     4). However, the default table does distinguish between global IPv6 addresses and ULA IPv6 addresses. So are you suggesting the default table needs to distinguish global IPv4 addresses and local RFC1918 IPv4 addresses?
> 
> I can't imagine why an IPv6 RFC would try to change the behaviour of IPv4 address selection, or whether current operating system kernels would even know what to do with the resulting precedences. I'm not sure that there's any code to support this.
> 
>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops