Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

I'm in favour of doing some new work, but I'm not convinced that the policy
that buraglio-v6ops-ula is sufficiently universal as to become a new default
policy.

I'm not sure that there is such a policy!!!

The document says:

   Other operational considerations are the use of the policy table
   detailed in section 2.1 of [RFC6724] . While conceptually the intent
   was for a configurable, longest-match table to be adjusted as-needed.
   In practice, modifying the prefix policy table remains difficult
   across platforms, and in some cases impossible.  Embedded,
   proprietary, closed source, and IoT devices are especially difficult
   to adjust and are, in many cases, incapable of any adjustment
   whatsoever.  Large scale manipulation of the policy table also
   remains out of the realm of realistic support for small and medium
   scale operators due to lack of ability to manipulate all the hosts
   and systems, or a lack of tooling and access.

It seems to me that we need a way to express policy at the network layer, and
for hosts to listen to that.  Since this document anticipates a change to all
hosts, it seems that we ought to just do it the right way once.
As such, I'm not convinced that this is a v6ops vs a 6man effort.

In reading the document, I got the impression that some of the problem is
that RFC6724 has not been properly adopted/implemented by comodity desktops
and smartphones.  Maybe that's just my reading of it, because that doesn't
seem to be a supported point in the thread.

It seems to me that part of the bug is that RFC6724 puts all IPv4 into the
same category, while it could break out RFC1918 addresses (and maybe rfc6598
100.64.0.0/10) specifically.   This is an example of a quibble about the
policy that I think many will have.





--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide