IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 15 February 2021 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510743A1266 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:31:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgyeL6br3yT8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6DCB3A1268 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id g3so3865371qvl.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:31:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=0YWWr9nb9oRl+pV6b+8YPdo/koYk0RGH7/sfAqu3EfY=; b=XSDvohK9kXfLgjQdHzcn8LgW6pEPOFMHXNxUuSNo9mpeYserG2u8tjhtOXmjTiRh4V Iwmyi4sr+aXPxmn80rHRpCRJxnzinoECn2FQzU6/fhIctf+gLOMBGx8EjvohZWe6pXfv rUg1RN7wZ4S5KpnviFyOiFjhzw9PsCennGkFA4jDQKcS392FPsSQerxFlDd3ozjLEq/G a2yRpJZ/GLU9nyzKKWi7jsQ4HRYpeAa+H1zlGM7DLCO8RvH6+8zbJOR1sdeYxWxVGcqE tDQrdaNJ8bafiz6uWAyfPDrZribo+7XVFgLvMfVppeuhj3o1nSzWHpWXVGY4C+puc2Hp KZbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=0YWWr9nb9oRl+pV6b+8YPdo/koYk0RGH7/sfAqu3EfY=; b=rflYUut36vRTWdrRCkr67PeKE4q4UcOz1MW7uCIxC8yvnTxHAnBrGSbXdOrY0qcDQ0 IVjif18yJIqEGfeAjgLkvwXsIND3Z3rHMHnPii3Yxa2cxG33KeIglUlgCokQRLjU0gvK qMhkl7QwO867dJlqs6fMwd3zvlQt544pzmOeHKv/xcdYGgznmJp+LbVuzziz0R35r2kn QIflK0pBYnoa5fQJjSgjO8+Y+jz2ak3bCWYR11IAV99TZ4/aH8tiW9W1wLvfBuczcJsX iDGdfjMCYXogKw39CiDWDQgRTzMx7frCNr1IZ2YhUuiolhVozA7nIm3e9ziTozaHFUhn 1Zlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532lNfVRlxj7rth+FFJ0SeRWmlOuft34AM/bUTGIFQ7Ys3Xs64Km +vVMbS+PMgjl908Fe0m63Y+cbA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1LQWAZxSRcTxzTv6SM2H80UxnZikSvD32eLxMH7p91zDSuXqDkhSult6qyNquFXveiNe6jQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4631:: with SMTP id x17mr17110521qvv.6.1613428284575; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o3sm12575906qke.132.2021.02.15.14.31.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:31:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <927CEDFF-5FF1-47B1-AA9C-064129F645CC@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EB0C18C-4700-438B-AEAC-582498F5D1D8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.32\))
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:31:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <f5bac28ab61441fabfb6b2db694c2ffb@boeing.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
References: <160989494094.6024.7402128068704112703@ietfa.amsl.com> <6fe3a45e-de65-9f88-808d-ea7e2abdcd16@si6networks.com> <F4E00812-E366-4520-AE17-7BB46E28D575@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3iOjjU+FLpdtA7nqfKRX+sjjSanAU8U-O3pH-k5nSoig@mail.gmail.com> <a3fbfb94-90ae-961c-a2ab-33ade27e074e@si6networks.com> <672bd5e6-bdce-5915-1082-1ed30d3c5980@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1CvbwZccq2Zyr8xBkiW1z0nKX_YcGW-y3VL7=pm+wA+w@mail.gmail.com> <227CDF8C-E929-4AA5-9D24-733381EB5C69@fugue.com> <CAN-Dau0JsMJ6Ad1pqeEKSKpRiSXDibMG4yKdVOKL4uFoqi5sAQ@mail.gmail.com> <EED3FE0C-1CE6-4472-895A-7BA6C6A998F3@fugue.com> <4cebe185-0b1b-04c1-4a89-b6c207bb82bb@si6networks.com> <b31c8eddd0c14e539f7c4fb472eb3563@boeing.com> <c0cd20f7-aa40-0053-9056-4df913716ac7@si6networks.com> <d1ea3406ec70488696a091ac1d5d0ff9@boeing.com> <98707BCB-C0BF-434A-B6F2-70CE20418CDD@fugue.com> <f5bac28ab61441fabfb6b2db694c2ffb@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/swDhHSRvhnsBOGfdFcE8VGeEerM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [EXTERNAL] Re: Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 22:31:27 -0000

On Feb 15, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Manfredi (US), Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> wrote:
> As an individual net designer, for the fd00::/8 block at least, I cannot allow myself to reuse the ULA prefixes, no matter how isolated my separate nets might be. I have to shoot for uniqueness. Instead, no problem at all using duplicated RFC 1918 addresses, among mutually isolated networks. So, as a designer, this puts an extra burden on me, when using ULAs vs RFC 1918.
> 
> And furthermore, for the fc00::/8 block, these ULAs might actually be guaranteed to be globally unique, even if they have to remain inside an admin domain.
> 
> Chasing after actual global uniqueness is not necessary, for fd00::/8 ULAs, but it's still what individuals who define these have to shoot for. To me, that's what matters, and it's not very confusing.

Yes. Exactly.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email