Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 18 February 2021 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B413A1941 for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:31:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7eSht_5-5JX for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:31:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04ED43A193E for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:d092:11d0:9223:9b8f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D32CA28020D; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:31:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>
References: <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:30:48 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:31:17 -0000

On 18/2/21 19:19, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Neither of those are good options. We’ve discussed this ad nauseum. RFC 4007 is correct. We do not need a new scope. A document that addressed this problem would be almost completely different. This is not a good starting place.

As far as I understand, the arguments have been:

The "no problem version":

1) "oh yeah, the specs are inconsistent, but we all know what we mean 
with the definition of ULAs", or,

2) Arguments about "scope" actually meaning something different than
   what's in RFC4007

The "there's a problem version":

3) Introduce a new scope, and redefine ULAs as such

4) Change the definition of scope

So... what do you think is the best way to address the inconsistency we 
currently have?  Update what, and how?

As noted, I don't care about any specific outcome, as long as 
inconsistencies are removed.

P.S.: It has also been argued that other special addesses are not really 
"global scope", and such should probably also be re-classified.

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