Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2022 21:04 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 30BE8C19E0EB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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=gmail.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 LAtv9WhniEC2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 60831C19E0EE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id p18so3637569plr.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc; bh=8bIg/Agf62Mv/57u3BQUvB4OQ6iDWIqTUzDPuZMraiY=; b=QT+hqV/PdotKGKFBvsdPbSqcxQFb23YoyoHQ0gXHRnnf335IfyT50OWhCQq8g/5Oyp oWqBo/w6oyB1LWfN+66b3W3h5eoXYBN1iDFbIwUcOs4BaiPPiJ2dunToVnmhryuApdC6 Z8ryU4V0UEKo3iys2D+Wvrbdk7sdFKM7moqzg74L2pmWVFL3McwA18FTpfBiFQoB+Et1 XiDk8le/H/EgTQ1FHMMfF3RfY4D1WlFodNG+RmtoaEAUlyrih6KKYG7Jmrdce+zvINcD w/SzOWnJAh+nsQ9x/PwRgm7W1GHIXJNUZozcZnEvkdSMSW6lLH+GOpo+zfH1I8hUITe6 7ONA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=8bIg/Agf62Mv/57u3BQUvB4OQ6iDWIqTUzDPuZMraiY=; b=OcHiqvYF2eIKFO3eQxQmByPtVFSfqsIArdnGR9OdwdirGvNBiX4OO/DyOzyq/kgtMm 3qFU4liZWz/B/aX7oVg90Sz5JXAKlPrGJB7AkB4FcxhVhlr6kYTAXjXKlxh1MnzlGp2v TDcR01LQZUyh6piwaIH1i9upuK+7JyD91u9UPWtHv5vtR/xmFLUSeqVKW09JQdX7jA7c 0rcwfmgYjl5Dh3X8hWSkRs16IXUnN77/FAhcCKG0JdRG1IwbDK9KkDtNkSYt6enCJsGx OCX8U8bPU1YN12yjo3q55lJLw3sg1iKvGFzBA3VL38BBIU1XNwaD5SE10VfOLJPbnisq 9uJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2YT4vlYnwPPaGw8b1OTtb2Y9h0Rqv3oLlS8YhWAqoYq/a4n3dm WiHBcwcRHtJR1CyFofcJRh6TKOkOjFUXbA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5xmXw7MbrFWNHbYISoD/Iv1avBQfZWw233MwTIz/ESvoXy/fybX/wGlTPHOz8mn8Vz17alCQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:a2a:b0:1f3:1479:e869 with SMTP id o39-20020a17090a0a2a00b001f31479e869mr9330796pjo.41.1659733461863; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2406:e003:1124:9301:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1124:9301:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d29-20020aa797bd000000b00525496442ccsm3402754pfq.216.2022.08.05.14.04.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Aug 2022 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f41e16cc-d04d-cfa9-7f42-6fc75d6c0948@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2022 09:04:17 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <CABKBHweedb9Cmefy3M+jBkX3P_ML++a2N7SpSKVcZ0gL2U5K8w@mail.gmail.com> <D28DC500-06C3-41EE-BB07-0B9DF630B288@cisco.com> <CAN-Dau2mc--CpTMkrAkBbPz3fX0SNG8D9iTU3q=gGaE--OaLew@mail.gmail.com> <EBF6BF82-A218-4AF0-89BB-E20A8ABCCE09@cisco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EBF6BF82-A218-4AF0-89BB-E20A8ABCCE09@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Sak1k2EnisQmORpHnqlSY7buED8>
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 21:04:25 -0000
Eric, On 06-Aug-22 08:13, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > David, > > You are correct. I think that the priority order should be (from most suitable to least suitable): > > * Global IPv6 > * Global IPv4 > * ULA > * RFC 1918 That may be your opinion, but many people disagree and that is why the consensus is otherwise. My own order of default preference for *destination* address selection would be: ULA Global IPv6 RFC 1918 Global IPv4 The rationale is: Prefer IPv6 always. Prefer local addressing when available. Obviously this requires similar rules in discovery (whether by DNS or some other method). If you can't discover a ULA, you will never use a ULA. Source address selection is simple: longest match with the destination. Brian > > I.e., there should be a distinction between global IPv4 and RFC 1918 addresses. Now, we can wonder whether it still makes sense to update RFC 6724 in 2022. > > Of course, LLA are also in the picture but what it important, for me, is global connectivity. > > Regards > > -éric > > *From: *David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Friday, 5 August 2022 at 18:08 > *To: *Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com> > *Cc: *Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion > > 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? > > -éric > > > Thanks > > -- > > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu> > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
- [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Clark Gaylord
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Cody Christman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Ackermann, Michael
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Ivan Pepelnjak
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Daniel Augustine
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Markus de Brün
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula discussion Vasilenko Eduard