Re: [v6ops] Default IPv6 Local Only Addressing for Non-Internet Devices (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-smith-v6ops-local-only-addressing-00.txt)

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 4:54 PM Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 2019, at 1:11 AM, Jen Linkova <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The draft says '...when it is clear to a device manufacturer that a
> > device should be isolated from the Internet by default..'
> > I'm not sure it's possible to know that.
>
> It *is* possible for the device to prevent its packets from going elsewhere,

Sorry I should have clarified: I'm questioning the statement that it's
possible (or should be done) to know at the time of manufacturing that
this particular
device should be isolated from the Internet.
Let's say I'm buying a printer. Or an IoT device (a sensor). How can
the manufacturer know if I'm going to install it at my mom's home
network with just one subnet (the link-local address would be
sufficient), at my place (with subnets, so GUAs are needed or at least
ULAs - but I would mean I have to configure my routers) or at my
office (so GUA are required for the device to work)?

Will I need to look for 'work with multiple network segments' sticker
on a box before I buy a device (and shall I test it in the lab because
vendors tend to be overly optimistic about their products feature
set)?

> assuming routers and proxies behave according to the rules and people aren't translating. That is a defined function of ULAs and Link-Local addresses.

Not sure about ULAs. The ULA has global scope. If a device has a
default gateway and ULAs only nothing would prevent it from sending
packets with ULA source to any destinations. The network is expected
to have a *policy* configured at its edge to block ULAs - so we are
back to 'it's a policy decision if this device should or should not
have  global connectivity'. Let the administrator decide.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry