IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C191B1A045D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 kEVTX7dIVzC2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B151A0446 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAA31B8067 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8808419005C; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:01:15 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1WpIj0-0000BNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:01:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <3CD5F864-EF19-49B4-9103-BD134C39C842@nominum.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <9DB71B37-999E-4F7F-A7DA-6B243574E818@nominum.com> <m1WpISc-0000CGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <EFD7A8B5-7A9D-4135-8DE1-7835D9CE4903@nominum.com> <m1WpIj0-0000BNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hI9Jc32Ew6zVMYqZVu0OgYpMlXU
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 27 May 2014 15:01:35 -0000

On May 27, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> Hmm. What RFC changed that? I looked at RFC-6724, but that still considers ULAs as
> a special case of global scope. (Section 3.1 "Also, note that ULAs are considered as
> global, not site-local, [...]")

Read section 10.   I'm not sure if/where there's a clear normative requirement that ULAs be treated as less preferable than GUAs, but they are definitely treated that way by stacks I've used.   I have a ULA configured on my home network, and none of the IPv6-capable devices in the home have trouble getting out to the internet.

ULAs are global in scope in the sense that they are (notionally) unique across the internet, but not in the sense that they are globally reachable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email