Subject: Last Call: 'Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:31:52 -0400

The IESG has received a request from the IP Version 6 Working Group WG to 
consider the following document:

- 'Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses '
   <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2004-07-15.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 09:06:45 +0930

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:31:52 -0400

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt

Hi All,

Just in case it has been forgotten, I had a some suggestions on the previous
single draft which a few people seemed to think there was some value in. I
think most of the comments would probably now apply to each of the split
drafts.

Briefly,

(a) replace "site" with "address domain", removing default geographical
connotations, define "address domain" and possibly provide some examples of
"address domains" to further clarify the concept.

(b) explicitly allow pushing longer prefixes than just /48s into peer
"address domains" eg. a /64 through to even a /128.

(c) a minor change to some text which, to me, seemed to imply split DNS was
necessary for a "Unique Local Address" environment.

The full details are at the following URLs :

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02644.html

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02646.html

Hope this helps,
Mark.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 01:36:28 +0100

> "address domains" to further clarify the concept.

I recall this suggestion was well received.  It sounds good.
 
> "address domains" eg. a /64 through to even a /128.

The draft(s) state how to generate/obtain the /48.  How much you use is up 
to you?
 
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02646.html

Hmmm, www1.ietf.org seems to be sulking:

traceroute to www1.ietf.org (132.151.1.19), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
....
14  po3-1.lond-scr4.ja.net (146.97.33.2)  6.915 ms  6.579 ms  6.082 ms
15  146.97.35.226 (146.97.35.226)  6.716 ms  6.952 ms  6.250 ms
16  195.50.116.201 (195.50.116.201)  8.198 ms  7.630 ms  7.344 ms
17  ae-0-51.mp1.London2.Level3.net (212.187.129.129)  6.157 ms  6.352 ms  7.232 ms
18  as-0-0.bbr2.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.128.102)  79.863 ms  79.363 ms  79.755 ms
19  so-7-0-0.edge1.Washington1.Level3.net (209.244.11.14)  80.669 ms  80.000 ms  80.473 ms
20  uunet-level3-oc48.Washington1.Level3.net (209.244.219.158)  81.847 ms  81.918 ms  81.572 ms
21  0.so-0-3-0.XL2.DCA5.ALTER.NET (152.63.43.178)  82.261 ms  82.384 ms  139.427 ms
22  0.so-1-1-0.XL2.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.35.122)  84.326 ms  83.505 ms  83.086 ms
23  0.so-0-0-0.XR2.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.35.117)  83.179 ms  84.067 ms  83.133 ms
24  284.at-5-1-0.XR2.TCO1.ALTER.NET (152.63.33.66)  85.303 ms  85.245 ms  83.518 ms
25  192.ATM7-0.GW5.TCO1.ALTER.NET (152.63.39.97)  85.683 ms  85.312 ms  84.690 ms
26  cnrl-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.44.142)  86.852 ms  86.883 ms  87.551 ms
27  optimus.ietf.org (132.151.1.19)  105.525 ms !<10>  105.166 ms !<10>  112.161 ms !<10>

$ telnet www1.ietf.org 80
^C
(Just hangs)

Tim

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:49:59 +0930

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 01:36:28 +0100
Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > connotations, define "address domain" and possibly provide some examples
> > of"address domains" to further clarify the concept.
> 

I agree.

There are a few cases of text describing default restrictions on distributing
unique local unicast routes ie. by default don't. Then it is stated that an
exception is a specifically configured /48. My thoughts were that longer
specific prefixes should also be ok, however, because of the way the text was
written, people might not think that. My suggested change was minor, just the
addition of "or longer" after the "/48". eg :

4.0 Routing
~~~~~~~~~~~

"Any router that is used between sites must be configured to
filter out any incoming or outgoing Local IPv6 unicast routes.
The exception to this is if specific /48 IPv6 local unicast
routes have been configured to allow for inter-site
communication."

I'd like to suggest changing the above to 

"Any router that is used between sites must be configured to
filter out any incoming or outgoing Local IPv6 unicast routes. 
The exception to this is if specific /48 or longer IPv6 local
unicast routes have been configured to allow for inter-site
communication." ("or longer" added)

There were a few instances of similar text.

> > (c) a minor change to some text which, to me, seemed to imply split DNS
> > was necessary for a "Unique Local Address" environment.
> > 

> Hmmm, www1.ietf.org seems to be sulking:

Strange, I actually used the URLs to make sure they were correct. Here are
alternatives :

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ipng&m=108556523612656&w=2

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ipng&m=108557235628703&w=2

Let me know if they don't work, and I'll cut-and-paste the originals to the
list.

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:15:45 +0200

Let me be brutal. I think that we are fiddling while Rome burns.
We need this thing to be done, and the draft is good enough
for Proposed Standard. Let's just ship it.

     Brian