IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 12 February 2021 23:30 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 710393A11B7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:30:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 pN7umEuooPqt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D234F3A1119 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id e15so921516qte.9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:29:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=kt+rMautOSHRWTdoP3zp7ymNIlXyHCKLRywW6EpCFZU=; b=0ZSQxvClsG+fgUMAN7T6casPu+s2WHnO+ia81S5GgvHFmbpGhcacVNg8erHP2/bkps mFhNpYDbmVCBqYa2vatjJvApuAMecj0tYRc7fvVcb0FYtRxsZAucMSMxxQy7blASeH1+ m/RHQ2ttD1e0hieSvyHadBJ8psrhon7ES/fw24lzfJlQ+UKaMpQ+UYhp7PFT0iY+HjOH BjOr6UUCyn52ft0u0lnEspmSssS037WJ3k1kj6WuvOu+uRP5cXIc+VOGlZAahsGdvOp4 5Dubs56NFwDJSwcdqFtrWAsB0D7hQLwPwysWTEArmys3H9fLqmqw50OzblCgAW75z4uA oivQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=kt+rMautOSHRWTdoP3zp7ymNIlXyHCKLRywW6EpCFZU=; b=lIzIhqJZ0eTMX20el+guurQA58yZMgThn8rmooy6UZJcprzM5uGmojo3s1/wv8e9nW D+tvVZK2TREsNBLp80v13BvViGyzU65PQTO9dVLZC7gp909D9ClgY6n8l3ttRQE0ucXh cNvzub8ZSNCIicXfHpQPlCWsURQ2eOeSMCy9wZjH3wST86ndUGOnUoMvXCZ3wnEBGIi7 XFPodC6Q2JXpH0HJ74JsvBOdUGRkHD5+9sIEo6Mppba6XOu49eREJi8D5zbAFFGaEarM h1h9CzJrfejenoCycwFh6QXkafwSutWEaeuSm5KYHlG3Iy6L86lUwlXdWoc3SGyBxmdu /aPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530TuRVfgF7QeYofnRKe8wxGwICqpVCzkPGgWMMn3a2yiXP802cl rpJCJguXC2YCCnNuV/rd1m5VRg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBJDVrofaVrkjzhed/+VKHl4EFj9egWLPagSnqf2RPrfAO6HMbShCgKsUfMCV6INemHPyzzw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:66c9:: with SMTP id m9mr4774358qtp.43.1613172594924; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i7sm5148535qke.5.2021.02.12.15.29.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:29:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <CB9EA5F4-A241-46A4-A371-B2A1BFB8C72F@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ACD6499B-FDBA-4FD2-BCA6-3088C68228D2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.32\))
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 18:29:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <b2e51a89-e8a7-9ddb-643d-63a98569b03c@si6networks.com>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <F4E00812-E366-4520-AE17-7BB46E28D575@gmail.com> <b2e51a89-e8a7-9ddb-643d-63a98569b03c@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ORtzl87kPvgqWjwH0G4XASM6BfI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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, 12 Feb 2021 23:30:04 -0000

On Feb 12, 2021, at 6:12 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> Both the uniqueness scope and the routing scope of ULAs are smaller than
> that of GUAs.

This is true, but the distinction is that there is no automatic mechanism specified for knowing whether a particular ULA is in scope for a link. It’s perfectly valid to use the default route to forward to a ULA destination. If a host were to automatically not do this, things would break all over the place.

IOW, what Fred said is perfectly correct and sensible, but the sense in which ULAs are global is that you should (MUST?) use the default route to route them unless there is a more specific route that matches.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email