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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-10@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 16 February 2021 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 0B5C43A0A69; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:20:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 PVTI_F8JWoyc; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D263A0A65; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1lC35S-00007oC; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:20:30 +0100
Message-Id: <m1lC35S-00007oC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-10@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <c0cd20f7-aa40-0053-9056-4df913716ac7@si6networks.com> <d1ea3406ec70488696a091ac1d5d0ff9@boeing.com> <98707BCB-C0BF-434A-B6F2-70CE20418CDD@fugue.com> <7EE1DA6D-0751-48FF-8238-FFEE15CE891E@gmail.com> <6167230f-b32a-e995-c071-b6c199ac5d64@si6networks.com> <858465C5-F428-4B47-8549-FCC201143B0C@fugue.com> <6959c883-a255-5ab8-9027-e05d369af2ff@si6networks.com> <m1lC29B-0000MuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <YCvkYXwTrSdQoe8Q@Space.Net> <F63054D3-59D0-47FA-AABF-98A18B8DFA6F@fugue.com> <YCvsVVkQc5zDJQVh@Space.Net> <D084D80B-66A3-4132-B111-31FC6A61A969@fugue.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:06:59 -0500 ." <D084D80B-66A3-4132-B111-31FC6A61A969@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:20:30 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/zB6KV6NOkdoAs16REbz9ECXkvjQ>
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: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:20:36 -0000

>    On Feb 16, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Gert Doering <[1]gert@space.net>
>    wrote:
> 
>      I cannot comment this in any way that is not full of negativism
>      about the achievements of IETF work in the area of SoHo
>      multihoming.  Sorry.
> 
>    Actually, RFC 8028 seems to address this problem correctly at
>    least for the single-link model:
> 
>    Default Router Selection ([2]Section 6.3.6 of [RFC4861]) is
>    extended as follows: A host SHOULD select default routers for
>    each prefix it is assigned an address in.  Routers that have
>    advertised the prefix in their Router Advertisement message
>    SHOULD be preferred over routers that do not advertise the
>    prefix, regardless of Default Router Preference.  Note that this
>    document does not change the way in which default router
>    preferences are communicated [[3]RFC4191].

We have a lot of protocol already. I have played extensively with moving
hosts from one upstream to another or what you can do with flash renumbering.

One big problem is that if you add it all up it becomes very complex. 
Certainly for people with an IPv4 background it is hard to figure out how
things should work. So the obvious way forward for them is to insert some
kind of NAT.

>From an application point of view, if you have to support IPv4 and NAT, is
it hard to support NAT for IPv6 as well?