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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 06 January 2021 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 055433A11E8; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 00:16:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.598 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.998, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m0RMNszsbVGm; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 00:16:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oo1-xc2e.google.com (mail-oo1-xc2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90A233A08A9; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 00:16:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oo1-xc2e.google.com with SMTP id j21so573577oou.11; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:16:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Hv+z6C8N/8tsSlNhDQeWDtom18SNWfr6ue8W5TflGHw=; b=HHmc7Ql0Qv9HTgFtHYREXql30u4OCb3SCUNPyVVd3Xci+vguMgsuzZGRtPRzego6cZ 1SuyFa3LJsOLJ3N8tNjI+gKhRdk5v9tcTMrlWrgQ+W+Tyq0eZmGMWYYKca4BifWewGPH GaNjs5YuvMXYNlrHHo6GeTUbpvm/yiWPTXJvzqN6oxxBtPtmQmznvLW+nFQGyj8un7xp ZfS6F3udTR2YO8pobxvjPJoS6X6KGictxIforODtWbocsWgjcVEULMIlRcVknFfx3fnT YJOQj+G/K2TVgfCTHArVjUMMgDwlbwTrxSAe6Jf6d7dg6l0WMvTIM1ZCzw/qY0f83MGU aHBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Hv+z6C8N/8tsSlNhDQeWDtom18SNWfr6ue8W5TflGHw=; b=lVDWBMfYrH4ZOqwUrATXXzw+RdZvs9NANyH5UD6Fs8i7gxQp4ibRIQhfQtLlcWTrNM tly5TMXGzusspL68J3StKsyn8cAtbwcB96w8KbKlmdR5aC8Lxk6A2sIohN1rGprzJMDe 22unXUJ1IV/CRduxam5zHn5LeYVLNzki9sLts1t256tbgN6uKKmAz0ryN6wLzMfMCWvv Br2jJmbbOqZivpM+x/UNEFGuWqrF6CHVLCr1tnYmXCwG7PvWMe4Gq9V0SSzwuyfL4lsk pZODR7rRCl5DQ//WmNTkAsnXndILI15hDCoNXhLNziXw4tifpRDKL+2Dc3s5UB/0Ot0B xrrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532x4m2MXQCgKGXJBUrnluqVRgeCxIxZJZftmpsj7G47hB2edg+f eMps9VUbAt6m/G4JeQuLkDeEDBkRPIftSdGIrBk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeupSNH2bYv620WA0DLsyOvzEKoG67i4LT3+Er3myuU6xXXaaYl/MJDPwLj3P+PBPhQZrY9NpYi4uV1DejZGY=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:520f:: with SMTP id d15mr1995880oob.29.1609920999896; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 00:16:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2wR-3vbHi-NrBBMmCTNDq5fgqvSmBUbYK7P+63QTNfxkg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr014PzVJj9Y6O=PBGc_QSVtur-0wMpaNkFA0dqr8FHGuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL9jLaZA4y+9bdvzq5r4V=B6580ZnsdwYyvQ4nzjdeccMsM4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZA4y+9bdvzq5r4V=B6580ZnsdwYyvQ4nzjdeccMsM4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:16:27 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yUEUJ5K15zdGaO6e9LneUK-Q8pSbZ0dwjQbhi=UCHJTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050b8a705b836f140"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/d1tOlhA-iNCw2rzq1aaCR8O6d9Y>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Jan 2021 08:16:42 -0000

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, 18:30 Christopher Morrow, <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 2:09 AM Lorenzo Colitti
> <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:01 AM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ULAs are intended to be globally unique addresses, but not to be
> globally (Internet) forwardable. Their forwarding scope is limited to
> non-global, either within a single local network, or between a set of local
> networks that have agreed to forward their respective ULA /48 prefixes
> between each other, overriding the default of local networks only
> forwarding scope. (Ethernet addresses are a similar example, globally
> unique addresses, link only forwarding scope.)
> >
> >
> > IMO defining ULAs as they are was a mistake. Global scope implies
> unique. But probabilistic uniqueness doesn't work because humans choose
> ULAs instead of generating them manually. Registry-based uniqueness doesn't
> work (and, to be fair, was never tried by the IETF) because there is no
> registry that has jurisdiction. Even if there were, there is no reason to
> keep addresses unique if they don't have global reachability.
> >
> > So I guess I'm somewhere between 1) and 3). The specs are consistent but
> they fail to consider human behaviour, so they don't actually work in
> practice. I don't know what to do about this though. If we say they're
> non-global scope, then they are going to be the exact equivalent of RFC1918
> addresses, with all the problems that that causes. If we continue to say
> they're global scope, then the specs don't match reality. :-(
>
> option 4, deprecate ULA.
> the best option (tm).
>


If you want to destroy IPv6 by causing enterprises to replicate RFC1918s
via site-locals and use NAT66, do that.

ULAs exist because site-locals would have created that problem.

People are already deploying ULAs mostly correctly - I know of 4
electricity smart meter networks that have more than 2 million meters
attached that are using ULA addressing. The only relatively minor mistake
made was that the smartmeter vendor took the 4 network's ULA spaces out of
a single /48, using /52s if I recall correctly, rather than generating a
/48 for each one.

While probably prohibited by government, if any if those networks merged,
routing between them will be as simple as linking them together and trading
/52 routes.

If they'd used site-locals, merging would instead be either as complex as
renumbering, or as bad as NAT66, the latter being most likely.