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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 15 February 2021 05:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 1F5C83A0A29; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:38:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 J4DApQCUehiD; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:38:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66D783A0A27; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 21:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:1c77:acfc:e6a8:1311] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:1c77:acfc:e6a8:1311]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF2EC280212; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 05:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <c0cd20f7-aa40-0053-9056-4df913716ac7@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 02:03:17 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b31c8eddd0c14e539f7c4fb472eb3563@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/u6ozKavdm5-KWpT2M1hNMArnWJM>
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 05:38:56 -0000

On 14/2/21 19:25, Manfredi (US), Albert E wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
> 
>> ULAs can't be global.
> 
> I think we've been going around and around on this.
> 
> Maybe it's good to compare the ULA situation with RFC 1918 private IPv4 addresses. In such a comparison, it is clear that RFC 1918 addresses "can't be global," and must be used only within some admin domain. But it is also clear that the intention, or hope, of ULAs, is that they be globally unique.

The intention is that, *given a subset of ULAs* the probability of 
collision is low.



> Yes, in practice, we know that there is a non-zero probability that ULAs won’t be globally unique, but at the same time, it is false to claim that ULAs "can’t be" globally unique. 

Please compute the birthday paradox assuming that each CPE in the world 
locally-generates a ULA prefix, and share the math with us. (that's what 
global scope means as per RFC4007)

Spoiler: P~1


> No one is telling us, "Go ahead and duplicate your ULAs, among admin domains, because they will be filtered out at border routers anyway."
> 
> At most, I'd add somewhere a notion of "only guaranteed within an administrative domain," and be done with it. I just don’t see how that is so confusing for anyone.

As per RFC4007:

scope means: topological span where the address is unique.
global means: Internet-wide span


Then we have this notion of "ULAs are 'global scope'", in which "global" 
meaning something different than what "global scope" means as per 
RFC4007. -- Hence the incongruence.

e.g., if "global" means "an administrative domain", then that's not 
global -- unless you're also keen to argue that link-locals can be 
considered "global scope".

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492