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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 16 February 2021 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740F03A0E11 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:32:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0saQRdvgAcRx for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 217E03A0DE9 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q85so10337896qke.8 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:32:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=r0/r92RMPTekdh+bd+Ov2o3VBlTw22ulcaU8uaHbNig=; b=UrpuaIs0VxyD25LhiZJ5pR562eGsrahfhDaJmTgXp6JO5EUQqOYjGrDEs8FZcfkZhv AwwdXXyaMTUg3DlrC8J3yAp78dhJqh4aDp1oauMut8gHNRkJHo+CotEIfaTDWjhmLlTa fAvMloTvhXh6TFS5CcJj5nmDBs85MpHNbmxVhKR5VRC3sq3M9bLvIY4fkQWHubQyVkBf 3Qqv3gk6Wsi5Fj/dlYnJcaQu972Z9RSV0N89VQxR2ZcDswY3X5h/qvfyL3DT1g1O/86k VdO8ue6R5gQNWBslvTfiUjHEqHG1qlnLl0EGZWqxYzz3m8A3YE1iIYvBJnKfJ+ic3gS/ tYWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=r0/r92RMPTekdh+bd+Ov2o3VBlTw22ulcaU8uaHbNig=; b=Rq1SLUFnNSGpkYhkF2S5hZ5wmfQ8MD6WXlvKaZekxpMc4IrMglJly0gosETOErOtkf k5jNIlrHqCiba7AIEFa5mCy/wQ7I83H1kvw20L5vIJ4NK7tmrs47mXnu+goWLZaeABaR Op/cxdFE/9ffjmIUmPPCIYRHYQTdoLN4ksbO/W8fMriwqncad4pzh8JTJuP7z4EetoUc BqjA1zEUnqWHSZa1CqU3SkbThJhJ7j3ZQ+EUuxIGlJItNloHn+YmW81RaPvUt2gobhRf FZQZWNQ0weCqSOhPhxqItFrvPTS1Y0yY3Ds5L7wI1KFVSjrs6IkE1ByWVO+gTDFk5XQN 5Cmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ffmx6iv1Db/r3FAIwpnsH03t/eqvjRC+Sb4YQ9CP6itxB9H5P KC7YFIwZ3qapTKcGmCtJ37e2Dw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFZRIafohjyjmEPdBUDJwqWedOqWjk/SQOJaNefOx+jhb8pTJkTcKx7sqbr1i/HC8A7D36bw==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7a41:: with SMTP id v62mr20644292qkc.210.1613500352712; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:32:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m190sm14910962qkc.66.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:32:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4D013EB9-D575-4094-8EAB-A7E5FC7F2FBC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:32:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <YCvkYXwTrSdQoe8Q@Space.Net> <> <YCvsVVkQc5zDJQVh@Space.Net> <> <YCvw1DC/eOKmoEYc@Space.Net> <> <YCv6lQDiseMUCOFd@Space.Net> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:32:41 -0000

On Feb 16, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Philip Homburg <> wrote:
>> The true greatness of dual-prefix multihoming, in my opinion, is
>> "hosts get to decide which ISP to use", so a given host can decide
>> "I want to use ISP A for my web traffic, and ISP B for my voice traffic"
>> (by picking the corresponding source address).
> We see that hosts don't even implement the basics, so this seems
> to be a bit of a pipe dream,

Indeed, I have no idea how a host would know.

It might be nice to be able to somehow configure the network to treat one link as preferred over another, e.g. if one connection is expensive. Of course, since the user isn’t likely to know to configure that, it needs to be automatic, and I don’t think an automatic mechanism has been specified.