[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt

Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote:

|> Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote:
|> |> Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx> wrote:
|> |> 
|> |> |+    Advertising locally assigned ULA AAAA records in the global DNS is
|> |> |+    MUST NOT occur as they are not globally unique and will lead
|> |> |+    to unexpected connections.
|> |> 
|> |> I strongly object to making this a "MUST NOT," especially with the growing
|> |> uncertainty that there will ever be a _permanent_ centrally assigned flavo
|> r
|> |> of ULA available without recurring fees.
|> |
|> |	Publishing AMBIGIOUS addresses in the GLOBAL DNS is WRONG.
|> Wrong in what way?  Morally?  If you don't want to be troubled by the
|> presence of locally assinged ULAs in my forward DNS, just don't request
|> names from my forward DNS.
|	A host may have *both* a LOCALLY ASSIGNED ULA and a global
|	addresses.  In fact this is highly likely.  If I have a
|	machine withe the same ULA when I attempt to connect the
|	remote machine I will get my machine according to the address
|	selection rules.

This may be true, but it is not responsive in spite of the tasteful use of
ALL CAPS.  You are starting with the premise that you are attempting to
access my machines by looking up a name in my DNS.  If you don't like the
way I populate my DNS then you don't need to use my DNS.

|> |	If you need to publish them in the DNS you need to use a 
|> |	split DNS configuration.
|> No, that will not work if I want to use locally assigned ULA addresses for
|> dynamic tunnels that anyone can access.  And in any case, do you really want
|> us to be in a position of mandating split DNS?  I have no objection to folks
|> running split DNS if they so desire, but I do not so desire and I certainly
|> do not wish to force split DNS on anyone.
|	Then choose a centrally assigned ULA.

As I'm sure you are aware, centrally assigned ULAs are not currently available
and their future availability on the terms originally suggested is becoming
increasingly unlikely.

|The two types of ULA have
|	different usage patterns.  Pick the correct one for the job.

When the proposal to create ULAs was "split" in order to accommodate a longer
process for the centrally assigned flavor (because of the supposed need for
comments from the existing address registries) the locally assigned flavor
had the necessary attributes to support a wide variety of usage patterns.
You propose to restrict the usage of the locally assigned flavor in such a
way that many interesting applications will demand the centrally assigned
flavor.  I propose that if we really want to do that then we should first
insure that the centrally assigned flavor comes into existence on reasonable

|> |This is no different to how we handle
|> |	RFS 1918 address.
|> Umm, if locally assigned ULA addresses are going to have to be treated the
|> same as RFC1918 addresses, why couldn't we have just kept site local addresse
|> s?
|	Centrally assigned ULAs are globally unique.  The restiction if
|	you read what was written above was on LOCALLY ASSIGNED ULAs.

And if you read what I wrote above you will see that I was indeed speaking
of locally assigned ULAs, even though I didn't put it IN ALL CAPS.

|	There is a choice.  You choose which set of tradeoffs to apply
|	when select your ULA.  You could even have one of each type.

This is a false choice.  It is impossible to choose the set of tradeoffs
because we have no idea what the attributes of centrally assigned ULAs (if
they ever exist at all) will be.  Basically, we copped out on mandating the
critical attributes of centrally assigned ULAs (permanent assignment, low
one-time fee) yet now you want to mandate restrictions on locally assigned
ULAs that will force a requirement for the centrally assigned flavor.

|> |They don't get published in the GLOBAL DNS
|> |	because they are AMBIGIOUS.
|> Merely repeating this assertion (even IN ALL CAPS) really isn't a useful
|> argument.  We have spent many months discussing ULAs as a solution to the
|> ambiguity of site local addresses.  This seems like a last minute attempt
|> to cripple them.
|	No.  It is a attempt to prevent harm from incorrect use.

Harm to whom?

|> |> An important feature of even locally assigned ULAs is that they are global
|> ly
|> |> unique "enough" for many/most purposes that have been discussed.  After mo
|> nth
|> |> s
|> |> of analysis to that end, their lack of absolute uniqueness is insufficient
|>  to
|> |> justify adding new prohibition on a particular range of uses at this late 
|> dat
|> |> e.
|> |
|> |	They are unique enough to link serveral hundred / thousand sites
|> |	*with minimal renumbering required*.
|> |
|> |	They are not unique enough to link millions of sites where the
|> |	is no way of knowing that renumbering is required.
|> Even if you are correct that they are not unique enough to link millions
|> of sites (and I do not accept that you are correct--duplicates could be
|> handled by cooperating sites by a de facto uniqueness mechanism outside
|> the scope of this proposal) how does this justify restricting the utility
|> of locally assigned ULAs in the several hundred/thousand sites case?
|> How about a compromise?  Let's first insure that centrally assigned ULAs
|> are available for permanent assignment with no recurring fees (and at most
|> a nominal initial fee).  Once that is accomplished we would be in a better
|> position to weigh the costs/benefits of recommending locally assigned ULAs
|> in various contexts.  Such recommendations could be in a document separate
|> from the core ULA document.  Restricting the use of locally assigned ULAs
|> before we even know whether there will be an alternative seems a bit rash.
|> After all, this topic has been under discussion for a very long time; what's
|> the rush now?

I see that you declined to reply to my suggested compromise.  How about we
make centrally assigned ULAs work before we break locally assigned ULAs?

|	It's not rash.  They have limitations.

You are confusing architectural limitations with administrative restrictions.
The architectural limitation of locally assigned ULAs is that there is some
chance of duplication.  This implies that exposure of such addresses outside
of the realm in which their uniqueness can be guaranteed may lead to ambiguity.
This is true regardless of the mechanism used to expose those addresses: global
DNS, some other name lookup system, or even the passing of a literal address
in some random protocol.

Your proposal to prohibit locally assigned ULAs from the global DNS is an
administrative restriction--one which considerably devalues the addresses
in question.

|The fact that you
|	don't like the limitatitions does not mean that they should
|	not be acknowledged and dealt with appropriately.

The limitations of locally assigned ULAs have been acknowledged and discussed
extensively.  Your proposal to create an administrative restriction does
nothing to deal with the limitations; it merely forces the use of an as yet
undefined alternative where locally assigned ULAs would have been sufficient.
This is very reminiscent of the original site local debates.

				Dan Lanciani

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6