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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 19 February 2021 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 683AE3A1A94; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:10:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 O_nKxNG8FbHI; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AEB33A1A93; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B81B428029A; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 00:10:27 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <a5b9b8566ce446d3a5e5dcc9ca2fbac2@boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1xD21EpqrSXKHLzADPyjeWcwc=phHGSFP8cj6705O2BQ@mail.gmail.com> <5f0f480a-b331-7f0c-a738-5d80bd8569e6@si6networks.com> <02dd48fbe6cc44c482662fdc1978219f@boeing.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <4908665c-94cf-810f-8bff-7407e3abe099@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:58:24 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02dd48fbe6cc44c482662fdc1978219f@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ITKGlJJf4enZsFTRuxRHJOhn_I0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: 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: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 00:10:41 -0000

On 18/2/21 20:39, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
> 
>> Well, this is a spec inconsistency. You have one spec (RFC4007) defining
> "scope" and "global scope", and another specs:
>>
>> a) making use of the same terms in an incorrect way, or,
>>
>> b) employing same terms but with a different definition.
>>
>> i.e., either the definition in RFC4007 is incorrect, or the use in
> RFC4193 and implicit use in RFC4291 is incorrect.
> 
> You can also argue, if there are prefix bits sent in the clear, and those prefix bits are used to send the packets to a pre-determined gateway, and that gateway is then used to decrypt all of the remaining address bits, then route packets through a walled garden intranet with global span, then global scope could still apply.

"global span" is defined as "Internet-wide" span. i.e., if an address 
does not unambiguously specify an interface Internet-wide, it's not 
global scope as per RFC4007.



> Just sayin'. These still aren't like RFC 1918.

The only practical differences I see with respect to rfc1918 are:

1) ULAs are not intended to be used with NAT.
However, were RFC1918 strictly specified to be employed along with NAT? 
Besides "not indended" != "won't be".

2) ULAs are intended to have a small probability of collision when a 
subset of ULA-based networks are interconnected.

This is the product of mandating that some bits are generated from a 
PRNG, plus the fact that ULAs have more bits than their RFC1918 counterpart.

If I have missed any other differences, please enlighten me. :-)

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492