IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 27 April 2022 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 D4422C1594A9; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 VVDRQ6sznVV8; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 8E0F7C157B55; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0826E38EAA; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:54:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id N-p4KOKjNkJU; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:54:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [172.30.2.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05C938E97; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:54:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01DE418; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man list <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <30261c5a60594d39abea6887e3bbe95d@huawei.com>
References: <CAM5+tA8WvjvWirxqE6kQ9LQAG0NcpWyCLGVooB=G7gZ9ETb2zQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220424172743.GA218999@fg-networking.de> <CAKD1Yr1v0Tkh+pWD-ts=PL3gZf7Qj6OHW6Cuvj8iGcSSMibjew@mail.gmail.com> <0afe25f5-52b7-a438-0696-cf8b0a83c2dc@gmail.com> <m1niw9v-0000JkC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <81d1bfa5857d4558adaea9da2ef94bdc@huawei.com> <m1niwbi-0000JyC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <30261c5a60594d39abea6887e3bbe95d@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:41:21 -0400
Message-ID: <25526.1651077681@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/YCprMASuZ2MI3XUMnhu8B903JQQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:41:30 -0000

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > You imply that ULA+NPT only happens in networks that do not have GUA. A
    > counter example would a be network that wants to use ULA+NPT for all
    > outgoing traffic, but has GUAs on servers to receive requests.

that seems irrelevant to me.

Servers having GUAs which are in DNS probably have static GUAs assigned.
They don't really care what's in the PIO, and for outgoing requests from
those servers, one might want them to use the NPT as well.
Those servers also do need to pick an address to use: they correspondant
picks that.

(Architectually, I'd want to put those servers on a new subnet that just had
servers.  The place where this changes is when one has things like SIP on
desktops, and one wants to support direct media.  webrtc also benefits from
GUAs on the desktop, but if one was going that direction, NPT would be all
wrong anyway)

So, that's not a counter example for me.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email