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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 16 February 2021 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 22BAA3A0121; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 07:38:27 -0800 (PST)
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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5yrZ1AunbOhv; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 07:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD8F83A003F; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 07:38:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:45cd:4b14:c31b:4847] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:45cd:4b14:c31b:4847]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF52C2803CC; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:38:20 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAN-Dau3iOjjU+FLpdtA7nqfKRX+sjjSanAU8U-O3pH-k5nSoig@mail.gmail.com> <a3fbfb94-90ae-961c-a2ab-33ade27e074e@si6networks.com> <672bd5e6-bdce-5915-1082-1ed30d3c5980@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1CvbwZccq2Zyr8xBkiW1z0nKX_YcGW-y3VL7=pm+wA+w@mail.gmail.com> <227CDF8C-E929-4AA5-9D24-733381EB5C69@fugue.com> <CAN-Dau0JsMJ6Ad1pqeEKSKpRiSXDibMG4yKdVOKL4uFoqi5sAQ@mail.gmail.com> <EED3FE0C-1CE6-4472-895A-7BA6C6A998F3@fugue.com> <4cebe185-0b1b-04c1-4a89-b6c207bb82bb@si6networks.com> <b31c8eddd0c14e539f7c4fb472eb3563@boeing.com> <c0cd20f7-aa40-0053-9056-4df913716ac7@si6networks.com> <d1ea3406ec70488696a091ac1d5d0ff9@boeing.com> <98707BCB-C0BF-434A-B6F2-70CE20418CDD@fugue.com> <7EE1DA6D-0751-48FF-8238-FFEE15CE891E@gmail.com> <6167230f-b32a-e995-c071-b6c199ac5d64@si6networks.com> <858465C5-F428-4B47-8549-FCC201143B0C@fugue.com> <6959c883-a255-5ab8-9027-e05d369af2ff@si6networks.com> <1A213B75-E144-4BDB-9229-92162D54B36A@fugue.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <5c9a09fb-716a-3256-d196-fde889fb18e5@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:28:57 -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: <1A213B75-E144-4BDB-9229-92162D54B36A@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fDoPUQh6ytJIiQcDCxUAqkzRapY>
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-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: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:38:27 -0000

On 16/2/21 12:17, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2021, at 10:09 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com 
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
>> But reading the "ipv6 scoped addressing architecture" (RFC4007) would 
>> have suggested that what they did is correct.
> 
> RFC 4007 doesn’t mention ULAs, so they wouldn’t have differentiated them 
> from other addresses on the basis of RFC 4007.

It doesn't mention ULAs, because it predates it.

But it is an *architecture* document (that what it claims to be). Hence, 
you'd assume that protocols reflect the architecture.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492