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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 14 February 2021 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AB03A07E2; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:39:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJMYkB4hhg0s; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:39:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B38CE3A0650; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:39:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w18so2913432pfu.9; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:39:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iRb+BStVOJYPJ3xn466w12WbnwcIoJUH3hRt9dZYmRo=; b=Ls9VzUrweO9nBBZtULQmWURIGjqeU9KLjmub+y/uNq8OblXR6wNkYDOMcb2Nlwp3nY kwH7x+nPYlxi/fmVdTO5XuO6zGOD82vfLfT+UdWNvEO2rTjke2afTk/Cf8Y7EvoBincd z/kxdyvO8RmXx8ustN1lkF1wIoUZnmROnY+Nwve/NkiAKA0kC1wd/YZsd+HdHYv2KXoU 3rFRm+bQ9vzvSGyiy/buAaPY1kqPJgANLi9BQVm3GQwbOCyySo8ZGBKee7oNyVCWHwNv W8zINKNMT9RgNuaBUc6D0ouhC5hJ9wa6j//MaZHdXcZIlu205lqwZOcsuyOdys3lfDpC s2wQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iRb+BStVOJYPJ3xn466w12WbnwcIoJUH3hRt9dZYmRo=; b=mTkxPeEMhtVbLS2Oen2z5DH02K6Y6IhF5841d+8SucoVD93J0Ua5riirfBVo3AO6Up GS7XG+ZyveUnZ9LpFed0+qRsJ+hhzAlxYV+yeviQ+UfaNRRvJkTiLmkJS9gsa+pRazSS tc8J+9/lpKPFt7z7mZ8c9eMe/uU1pEeH/PUckp4bZDT2ZXTS/RtPUXeIxg19eNVOp1Jp iZfUS2d9WmOtJH81WWoQAIHRkha5MgyB4605LMiMPHq1GLL65WnCi+73tKW1gdyiV0uF stOe7VAhOL0EchzRiUEW2/SyLAUPqt6xdFgEGJkkeGS2eMKkC8hh/BN7PUWWatkaRqwe ng6w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530RSYu0E4SuXwEofdnDrmaH27ISNPdr7v9aQ/MT4uJJvLkAY3Tm nUf3ZhFuhqwtgpspTrV+jVtC0pL7pW5wkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzh9UkB3QE6RI4/ZK3OlHHDJqf/Fc0dzPRDvTpBvPDPb7J4nS+MQ1s+OR46aNGQqVcSW7hUZQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:4d43:0:b029:1c6:e790:5f8f with SMTP id a64-20020a624d430000b02901c6e7905f8fmr12390117pfb.65.1613331579882; Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id u3sm16877536pfm.144.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Feb 2021 11:39:39 -0800 (PST)
To: Ted Lemon <>, Fernando Gont <>
Cc: David Farmer <>, Fred Baker <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:39:34 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
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: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 19:39:42 -0000

On 15-Feb-21 04:43, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2021, at 1:00 AM, Fernando Gont < <>> wrote:
>> IMO, if the areas overlap, the scope ofa ULA1 and ULA2 are still the same. One scope is Area(ULA1): all the area where ULA1 addresses are unique and can be actively employed. The other one is Area(ULA2).
>> The intersection of the two areas is part of the scope of each of the two ULAs (because in that region both ULA1 and ULA2 are unambiguous)
> Since you still haven’t clearly articulated what you mean by “scope” with respect to ULA, it doesn’t make sense to say that one ULA has the same or a different scope than another. In any case, what you are describing here is precisely what the “label” entry in an RFC 6724 policy table does. Which is to say, you are not talking about scopes.
>> This is not that different from the overlap of e.g. link-locals and GUAs on a local link….
> Since the different treatment of GUAs and LLAs on a link is something that can be known by definition, and thus be handled by if-then-else statements rather than by table lookups, I would say that they are quite different.

Exactly. The reachability of a given routeable prefix is defined *only* by the contents of the forwarding tables in a set of interconnected routers, and by definition those tables must not include any LL prefix.

At this point I'm thinking that we'd be better off not using the word "scope" at all. It's an abstraction that doesn't seem to describe anything in the real world.