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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 13/2/21 18:33, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 13/2/21 18:17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 13-Feb-21 22:19, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> ...
>>> Well, whether we call it out or not, as per RFC4007:
>>>
>>>                 scope(LL) < scope(ULA) < scope(GUA)
>>
>> And there's the fallacy. This inequality only makes sense if 
>> reachability is strictly a matter of concentric circles. It isn't. 
>> Nice math, but not reality.
>>
>> Slide 4 of https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/scope6.pdf
> 
> I don't follow. In all of your slides Area(link-local) < Area(ULA) < 
> Area(global)....


I assume that the "site" refers to the (deprecated) "site-local" 
addresses, and what you try to point out in slide #4  is that it's at 
odda with RFC4007, which specifies there can only be one zone for each 
scope.

However, I consider *that* requirement rather flawed.

Slide #4 could indeed be the case where a node attaches to a subnet 
where .e.g two different routers advertise different ULA prefixes -- and 
one or the two of them also advertises global prefixes.

Each shaded "site" constitutes a different layer (as in John Day's PNA).
In principle, hosts on each of the shaded sites cannot reach hosts on 
the other shaded site (since they are in different layers).

But all can communicate via the global layer.

Not sure what'd be the problem with that...


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492