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

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 13 February 2021 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5463A1CD8 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:57:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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 nVQKXA_NQsdz for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08DC83A1FFB for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 81so1434439qkf.4 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:53:04 -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=KYXzbBcRkd4MBfExtFc9fWZl4yWQCZ24ghwggbhwwGg=; b=vId1kqX8tCUyFg3sjgDsCML9qJAMOm76p1QfSxfYCx4Ys2crMQhnyZvtRCbvbQfpra 2NELKMEeXVTn4Kz7CAY56jecs9BvPdjKKsIVyYNrVoTob0GqgIbjO5OuI6ylbHsweV3I a1XxyAmv4dUL/PKWBirfQLZuVjLG0+ZcFelZkIJ+5CBi8tFOoRRYxVRoHjAMhlA6V9xu wbyjcObMSd63OcxjEHbmfQkotKaqSSofAeQlZ6fRl9QyX9uHr1eJZ6F1GnwDsDv+Noy5 PqYtN8XTxEcoLBajOgs4l3EUmb1gPqvqoLoCOeXcglkgUKRJ90kabhzJU8tMvpcKrAAj dHPg==
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=KYXzbBcRkd4MBfExtFc9fWZl4yWQCZ24ghwggbhwwGg=; b=pc8M0ERP84UCAdJpAHZPUvSeJ8UyAizD+6OFmLtKuPTaJ3WYhj0dbP3FlBxZU69/px 6tdr0LYvat6GydVXZxsdrT/FKhboYo7yIQvaHkricPRDiuURmsWIdysJKbWPvKze6TEa FFWProVpYtAA0+fePM1KvLBMK6Sntwb5Tug6ZPnCuFkV/fkEfY3BDbhYJzP3+TdSsRQ8 3NGS2Nn9D7JahQxZFRR+25d0XsbvuqqxVDX8PiuQ32ykkIj6pktP+Y0E57oyZRlcvjRw iz9735x1bAMPhnQahvVUhXhN6PkZS8pfRjg+p/voaYCNSiMIIJlLuLXwMHgU5CNuguGC DHtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531htGxb7Lof+WjzAGq7EIE+F6LPwD4rqRDyv3lFDuMAa/Ntctfm kB2pZjWn1vqhIK+jL1U8NWjB6CfxuGGYUw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4XAI9GDWQPw5xtax58f8uacoXAZzXdgjUbNKuYYdRVH3DP5PQ9P79YVq8GLuq4mOMrC1YPA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:895:: with SMTP id b21mr5520133qka.80.1613177584055; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:53:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i7sm5260971qke.5.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:53:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E4ECA60E-1F0E-4F14-A99C-B52AC4E24211"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 19:53:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 00:57:22 -0000

On Feb 12, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
>> So maybe a better question to ask is, why are we discussing this? What problem are we trying to solve?
> As per the above, either the definition in the scoped addressing architecture is wrong, or flagging ULAs as "global scope" is incorrect.
> The problem I'm trying to solve is one of architecture, so to speak.

RFC 4007 only defines two scopes for unicast addresses: “link local” and “global.” In this taxonomy, ULA is clearly and unambiguously global, so there is no mistake.

But you think there’s a problem. In order for us to know what to do about this problem, you need to be able to articulate it in a way that makes sense to us. The best way to do so is to point to a case where the behavior of some system will be incorrect because this was not specified correctly. Can you point to such a case?