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 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C123A0D66 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:51:35 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 6u_xsiIzj1Le for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:51:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD0753A0D64 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g3so832190qvl.2 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:51:32 -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=R3xJ02JgILdgimKBhrSkcenwH3tFBdwP9KenPQn/H0c=; b=HsKliaEwbfu1B4YL4oNfILqRsC4LV7dT3ruSthrQIrE57PzWNWmm1bhe3qXMROG/B/ i+ZW8t+HqT/rkPDxlw2SD5BbJcGU50iMUITyiv0cx0JhtArG8SvaikfGlXG3kzMLCtC8 6bye9JAX6ZlE5QOYiN5xmYQponI7ZR0mKu/NiP/IoaIMWuBP1GINXh1W6ptPbJlMBgjl jGzgA8FuhLMdg8h/bzmvIjAfkCZ9Ks544AKm7tLhoXymqGjh5MGgtDC15tLI1BcvKX0X LCmxiOTfPhw6woVh7KzdKfYjgZtVmpUTWcPy7wr7ba5E+m/wL60svQM0Nyhti2+BjAUZ M18g==
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=R3xJ02JgILdgimKBhrSkcenwH3tFBdwP9KenPQn/H0c=; b=YxUE3Vnvd0gim3qaZsY3m82c1qsWLSz0r8u6oR6MuUU5NaEkRscY/UFc9rs/l/NtSU F3onEEi7cSz3bONXl7oNqfI0H0e5JBDAOYKBjaXUGJ0n480OKAhWqDv7tUUF1tRZCvnk Au0PAjfLZATLjJnZDzxPn/buPoc94IDo9UdS58w/6Mc9gw22CKbzjWZFx/zveerQ4yyt WanRiWvmJl5vBb/VWaMjnU8i+Z5Uvxj56mZCf2Schw0BwxLtS5W4qbhalJo+7i6fRlHZ FO2ZJp+QG5N+LzUSaUsNVGijUxvc179xOSgwzQy+EXvCVSNxDL/O6GqHuBe6AWaTBkbm SYSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532lkfqqYQnuzWq/u24b8wlzmoRhKKB0S5gyMw8Z/QEPUo08ki7s yncVBGB6MDMH8bSepGxz4W9fRpkRMtL6jg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/z0D6IEO0qavu+rHiGwhZSRzgcqgNWw0UPF/rtsmvKnOPu+1G6AoephKbJWM5gsK72Qu1mA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:208:: with SMTP id i8mr5864263qvt.31.1613191890252; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n8sm6641749qta.61.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Feb 2021 20:51:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2BAAE37D-A59B-43F4-AD0A-E19AF808920A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 23:51:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Fernando Gont <>,
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 04:51:35 -0000

On Feb 12, 2021, at 10:13 PM, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> You might argue that architecture is not important (I'd disagree with that :-) ), but, at the end of the day, if it's not important, why pretend to have one in the first place? (in particular when there's no consistency with the actual protocols)
> As noted, the only practical implications I've seen have been:
> * Folks willing to have a registry for ULAs, on the expectations that
>  they are indeed unique -- whcih they are not!
> * Folks having a hard time understanding the addressing architecture --
>  in particular the scoped addressing architecture (RFC4007) and how
>  that applies to actual specs (e.g., definition of ULAs)

The thing is, the meaning of the architecture document as it pertains to ULAs is plain to me, and it’s just what Brian said.

So who is confused? Are you having operational issues, or just speculating? I don’t mean to minimize your concern—just trying to get a sense of why this has come up. Do you not know how to operate in the presence of ULAs? Have you been getting questions from customers that you can’t answer to their satisfaction? Have you run into routing issues?