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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 12, 2021, at 10:13 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> 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?