Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 18 February 2021 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9033A1919 for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:19:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, THIS_AD=0.899, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZtKYJuBrUJE for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2086D3A136A for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r77so3761625qka.12 for <>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=EPVzL8WZ1BCLwOeVTxH2RqwYEPq2PHUVwjmuE08oOGc=; b=dUAmz6P1sWkNc94O4M3NAT7zIpyPilbAuyED6gL4N63uLn/RWzRJ0/lmZM2cquWTfH yHgyt6LwqxA7p7JReg+TDGUsLeP8Ew992GwFDfuKdTsm77HZZ9MF9OnfZnYdF9eAaImQ qI/iw1IUkDM7IBpDi4Ec/uM16PGUEQAPTnxBiUhmnOvOXULMt2RwReRp/rfEyMyDRD5R qgGx210Q+Ra0IdlI8fVabdiprYym/4LqqCFpPJkEMNDlU4ZAXFPoiOuFTCPV9YzGsOFG TdSbFNS+uVv7k4cWvSvn3yD9PUej2mUS3+Afr+vfjV+uRIM6hTycnUWM9Fla9mRozmwn b5xA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=EPVzL8WZ1BCLwOeVTxH2RqwYEPq2PHUVwjmuE08oOGc=; b=g1y0T5rfbf8HOfr5cvFHPnAwJ55bDr1rQfjHq9eP2EOX+9NwcCzltFxX5JtQLFP4YK t5Q30UETS9k7BY88E4hz2ZyPOSc7+bMepTeSSO9wGLIOVT3cQZAaBpnAzprU2QC/ACLR OwEGYdesdMPvoCh3AldFq/AeAf19uWPJcSt1c5qtetR3ERRgg6kcqSu8cUNdShXvFlDb h7221jgcPMmJvY0HFvy3QGmLsFFv8K8vNlQFky9IyETN8N+du9z4kTbGpw807AzctL4W dHK7uDzNxnNbs73lg8tajLmKWbltFWbITy/FS3QFkXjXd8SnqKoLRNBvlGemlTFqdXNy YHFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ThHD27Vpcvey7J7z08JX21ohqJqKsutBcRytDFyC0dUZuIDH6 membzaTeckQWBN5aBalDuFeWDb9F7w3J9w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzT1p/7sV/2auJcWtQ3cnDkKIh92Bu54XCWZwWQqVm3cA/RdTJDsyGSxX6y51fkmYi8/neR3g==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:556:: with SMTP id 83mr6826134qkf.298.1613686794687; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g9sm2514078qth.53.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:19:52 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Fernando Gont <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18E156)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:19:58 -0000

Neither of those are good options. We’ve discussed this ad nauseum. RFC 4007 is correct. We do not need a new scope. A document that addressed this problem would be almost completely different. This is not a good starting place. 

> On Feb 18, 2021, at 17:10, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> Hi, Ted,
>> On 18/2/21 18:53, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Fernando Gont < <>> wrote:
>>> This text predates draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope which effectively does try to formally update the scope of ULAs.
>> I know you haven’t asked for a call for adoption yet, but it’s pretty clear that you’re in the rough on adding a “local” scope
> The intent was not to add a local scope, but to fix the inconsistency among RFC4291, RFC4193, and RFC4007.
> It could very well mean adding a local scope (even if it's ULA specific), obsoleting RFC4007, or any other option.
> Right now, the "IPv6 Scoped Addressing Architecture" (RFC4007) disagress with the definition of ULAs as "global scope" (as per RFC4193/RFC4291).
> Yes, networks do not break down as a result of this (it's unlikely that that might happen as a result of an architecture document which, by definition, it's going to be rather abstract).
> But we already have existing cases (e.g. Python's library) where they solve our spec inconsistencies in their own way. And, certainly, we cannot really offer authoritative responses, because we have different specs arguing in different ways.
> Given that we'll likely have IPv6 for a while, I would understand if people have different ideas regarding how inconsistencies can be solved (e.g. "new scope" vs "obsolete RFC4007"). But IMHO it would be awkward for folks to argue in favor of keeping conflicting specs.
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail:
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492