[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations

Internet Engineering Task Force                                   B. Liu
Internet-Draft                                                  S. Jiang
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: November 3, 2015                                    May 2, 2015


            Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses
             draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-05

Abstract

   This document provides considerations for using IPv6 Unique Local
   Addresses (ULAs).  It identifies cases where ULA addresses are
   helpful as well as potential problems that their use could introduce,
   based on an analysis of different ULA usage scenarios.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 3, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Analysis of ULA Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Automatically Generated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Globally Unique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.3.  Independent Address Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.4.  Well Known Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.5.  Stable or Temporary Prefix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Analysis and Operational Considerations of Scenarios Using
       ULAs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Isolated Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Connected Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.1.  ULA-Only Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  ULAs along with PA Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  IPv4 Co-existence Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  General Considerations For Using ULAs . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Do Not Treat ULA Equal to RFC1918 . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Using ULAs in a Limited Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  ULA Usages Considered Helpful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Used in Isolated Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  ULA along with PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.3.  Some Specific Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.3.1.  Special Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.3.2.  Used as NAT64 Prefix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.3.3.  Used as Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) are defined in [RFC4193] as provider-
   independent prefixes that can be used locally, for example, on
   isolated networks, internal networks, or VPNs.  Although ULAs may be
   treated like addresses of global scope by applications, normally they
   are not used on the public Internet.  ULAs are a possible alternative
   to site-local addresses (deprecated in [RFC3879]) in some situations,
   but there are differences between the two address types.

   The use of ULAs in various types of networks has been confusing to
   network operators.  This document aims to clarify the advantages and
   disadvantages of ULAs and how they can be most appropriately used.



Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS.  When these words are not in
   ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual
   English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key
   words.

3.  Analysis of ULA Features

3.1.  Automatically Generated

   ULA prefixes can be automatically generated using the algorithms
   described in [RFC4193].  This feature allows automatic prefix
   allocation.  Thus one can get a network working immediately without
   applying for prefix(es) from an RIR/LIR (Regional Internet Registry/
   Local Internet Registry).

3.2.  Globally Unique

   ULAs are intended to have an extremely low probability of collision.
   Since multiple networks in which the hosts have been assigned with
   ULAs may occasionally be merged into one network, this uniqueness is
   necessary.  The randomization of 40 bits in a ULA prefix is
   considered sufficient enough to ensure a high degree of uniqueness
   (refer to [RFC4193] Section 3.2.3 for details) and simplifies merging
   of networks by avoiding the need to renumber overlapping IP address
   space.  Such overlapping was a major drawback to the deployment of
   private [RFC1918] addresses in IPv4.

   Note that, as described in [RFC4864], applications may treat ULAs in
   practice like global-scope addresses, but address selection
   algorithms may need to distinguish between ULAs and Global-scope
   Unicast Addresses (GUAs) to ensure bidirectional communications.  As
   a further note, the default address selection policy table in
   [RFC6724]) responds to this requirement.

3.3.  Independent Address Space

   ULAs provide internal address independence in IPv6 since they can be
   used for internal communications even without Internet connectivity.
   They need no registration, so they can support on-demand usage and do
   not carry any RIR/LIR burden of documentation or fees.






Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


3.4.  Well Known Prefix

   The prefixes of ULAs are well known thus they are easily identified
   and filtered.

   This feature is convenient for management of security policies and
   troubleshooting.  For example, network administrators can segregate
   packets containing data which must stay in the internal network by
   assigning ULAs to internal servers.  Externally-destined data can be
   sent to the Internet or telecommunication network by a separate
   function, through an appropriate gateway/firewall.

3.5.  Stable or Temporary Prefix

   A ULA prefix can be generated once, at installation time or factory
   reset, and then possibly never be changed.  Alternatively, it can be
   regenerated regularly, depending on deployment requirements.

4.  Analysis and Operational Considerations of Scenarios Using ULAs

4.1.  Isolated Networks

   IP is used ubiquitously.  Some networks like industrial control bus
   (e.g.  [RS-485], [SCADA], or even non-networked digital interfaces
   like [MIL-STD-1397] have begun to use IP.  In these kinds of
   networks, the system may lack the ability to communicate with the
   public networks.

   As another example, there may be some networks in which the equipment
   has the technical capability to connect to the Internet, but is
   prohibited by administration or just temporarily not connected.
   These networks may include separate financial networks, lab networks.
   machine-to-machine (e.g. vehicle networks), sensor networks, or even
   normal LANs, and can include very large numbers of addresses.

   Serious disadvantages and impact on applications due to the use of
   ambiguous address space have been well documented in [RFC1918].
   However, ULA is a straightforward way to assign the IP addresses in
   the kinds of networks just described, with minimal administrative
   cost or burden.  Also, ULAs fit in multiple subnet scenarios, in
   which each subnet has its own ULA prefix.  For example, when we
   assign vehicles with ULA addresses, it is then possible to separate
   in-vehicle embedded networks into different subnets depending on
   real-time requirements, device types, services and more.

   However, each isolated network has the possibility to be connected in
   the future.  Administrators need to consider the following before
   deciding whether to use ULAs:



Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


   o  If the network eventually connects to another isolated or private
      network, the potential for address collision arises.  However, if
      the ULAs were generated in the standard way, this will not be a
      big problem.

   o  If the network eventually connects to the global Internet, then
      the operator will need to add a new global prefix and ensure that
      the address selection policy is properly set up on all interfaces.

   If these further considerations are unacceptable for some reason,
   then the administrator needs to be careful about using ULAs in
   currently isolated networks.

   Operational considerations:

   o  Prefix generation: Randomly generated according to the algorithms
      defined in [RFC4193] or manually assigned.  Normally, automatic
      generation of the prefixes is recommended, following [RFC4193].
      If there are some specific reasons that call for manual
      assignment, administrators have to plan the prefixes carefully to
      avoid collision.

   o  Prefix announcement: In some cases, networks may need to announce
      prefixes to each other.  For example, in vehicle networks with
      infrastructure-less settings such as Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V)
      communication, prior knowledge of the respective prefixes is
      unlikely.  Hence, a prefix announcement mechanism is needed to
      enable inter-vehicle communications based on IP.  As one
      possibility, such announcements could rely on extensions to the
      Router Advertisement message of the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
      (e.g., [I-D.petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing] and
      [I-D.jhlee-mext-mnpp]).

4.2.  Connected Networks

4.2.1.  ULA-Only Deployment

   In some situations, hosts and interior interfaces are assigned ULAs
   and not GUAs, but the network needs to communicate with the outside.
   Two models can be considered:

   o  Using Network Prefix Translation

         Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) [RFC6296] is an experimental
         specification that provides a stateless one-to-one mapping
         between internal addresses and external addresses.  The
         specification considers translating ULA prefixes into GUA
         prefixes as an use case.  Although NPTv6 works differently from



Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


         traditional stateful NAT/NAPT (which is discouraged in
         [RFC5902]), it introduces similar additional complexity to
         applications, which may cause applications to break.

         Thus this document does not recommend the use of ULA+NPTv6.
         Rather, this document considers ULA+PA (Provider Aggregated) as
         a better approach to connect to the global network when ULAs
         are expected to be retained.  The use of ULA+PA is discussed in
         detail in Section 4.2.2 below.

   o  Using Application-Layer Proxies

         The proxies terminate the network-layer connectivity of the
         hosts and associate separate internal and external connections.

         In some environments (e.g., information security sensitive
         enterprise or government), central control is exercised by
         allowing the endpoints to connect to the Internet only through
         a proxy.  With IPv4, using private address space with proxies
         is an effective and common practice for this purpose, and it is
         natural to pick ULA as its counterpart in IPv6.

   Benefits of using ULAs in this scenario:

   o  Allowing minimal management burden on address assignment for some
      specific environments.

   Drawbacks:

   o  The serious disadvantages and impact on applications imposed by
      NATs have been well documented in [RFC2993] and [RFC3027].
      Although NPTv6 is a mechanism that has fewer architectural
      problems than a traditional stateful Network Address Translator in
      an IPv6 environment [RFC6296], it still breaks end-to-end
      transparency and hence in general is not recommended by the IETF.

   Operational considerations:

   o  Firewall deployment: [RFC6296] points out that an NPTv6 translator
      does not have the same security properties as a traditional NAT44,
      and hence needs be supplemented with a firewall if security at the
      boundary is an issue.  The operator has to decide where to locate
      the firewall.

      -  If the firewall is located outside the NPTv6 translator, then
         filtering is based on the translated GUA prefixes, and when the
         internal ULA prefixes are renumbered, the filtering rules do
         not need to be changed.  However, when the GUA prefixes of the



Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


         NPTv6 are renumbered, the filtering rules need to be updated
         accordingly.).

      -  If the firewall is located inside the NPTv6 translator, the
         filtering is then based on the ULA prefixes, and the rules need
         to be updated correspondingly.  There is no need to update when
         the NPTv6 GUA prefixes are renumbered.

4.2.2.  ULAs along with PA Addresses

   Two classes of network might need to use ULA with PA (Provider
   Aggregated) addresses:

   o  Home network.  Home networks are normally assigned with one or
      more globally routed PA prefixes to connect to the uplink of an
      ISP.  In addition, they may need internal routed networking even
      when the ISP link is down.  Then ULA is a proper tool to fit the
      requirement.  [RFC7084] requires the CPE to support ULA.  Note:
      ULAs provide more benefit for multiple-segment home networks; for
      home networks containing only one segment, link-local addresses
      are better alternatives.

   o  Enterprise network.  An enterprise network is usually a managed
      network with one or more PA prefixes or with a PI prefix, all of
      which are globally routed.  The ULA can be used to improve
      internal connectivity and make it more resilient, or to isolate
      certain functions like OAM for servers.

   Benefits of Using ULAs in this scenario:

   o  Separated local communication plane: for either home networks or
      enterprise networks, the main purpose of using ULAs along with PA
      addresses is to provide a logically local routing plane separated
      from the global routing plane.  The benefit is to ensure stable
      and specific local communication regardless of the ISP uplink
      failure.  This benefit is especially meaningful for the home
      network or for private OAM function in an enterprise.

   o  Renumbering: in some special cases such as renumbering, enterprise
      administrators may want to avoid the need to renumber their
      internal-only, private nodes when they have to renumber the PA
      addresses of the rest of the network because they are changing
      ISPs, because the ISP has restructured its address allocations, or
      for some other reason.  In these situations, ULA is an effective
      tool for addressing internal-only nodes.  Even public nodes can
      benefit from ULA for renumbering, on their internal interfaces.
      When renumbering, as [RFC4192] suggests, old prefixes continue to
      be valid until the new prefix(es) is(are) stable.  In the process



Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


      of adding new prefix(es) and deprecating old prefix(es), it is not
      easy to keep local communication disentangled from global routing
      plane change.  If we use ULAs for local communication, the
      separated local routing plane can isolate the effects of global
      routing change.

   Drawbacks:

   o  Operational Complexity: there are some arguments that in practice
      the use of ULA+PA creates additional operational complexity.  This
      is not a ULA-specific problem; the multiple-addresses-per-
      interface is an important feature of IPv6 protocol.  Nevertheless,
      running multiple prefixes needs more operational consideration
      than running a single one.

   Operational considerations:

   o  Default Routing: connectivity may be broken if ULAs are used as
      default route.  When using RIO (Route Information Option) in
      [RFC4191], specific routes can be added without a default route,
      thus avoiding bad user experience due to timeouts on ICMPv6
      redirects.  This behavior was well documented in [RFC7084] as rule
      ULA-5 "An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default
      router with a Router Lifetime greater than zero whenever all of
      its configured and delegated prefixes are ULA prefixes." and along
      with rule L-3 "An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router
      for the delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to
      provide ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option"
      specified in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191].  This advertisement is
      independent of having or not having IPv6 connectivity on the WAN
      interface.".  However, it needs to be noticed that current OSes
      don't all support [RFC4191].

   o  SLAAC/DHCPv6 co-existing: Since SLAAC and DHCPv6 might be enabled
      in one network simultaneously; the administrators need to
      carefully plan how to assign ULA and PA prefixes in accordance
      with the two mechanisms.  The administrators need to know the
      current issue of the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction (please refer to
      [I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem] for details).

   o  Address selection: As mentioned in [RFC5220], there is a
      possibility that the longest matching rule will not be able to
      choose the correct address between ULAs and global unicast
      addresses for correct intra-site and extra-site communication.
      [RFC6724] claims that a site-specific policy entry can be used to
      cause ULAs within a site to be preferred over global addresses.





Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


   o  DNS relevant: if administrators choose not to do reverse DNS
      delegation inside of their local control of ULA prefixes, a
      significant amount of information about the ULA population may
      leak to the outside world.  Because reverse queries will be made
      and naturally routed to the global reverse tree, so external
      parties will be exposed to the existence of a population of ULA
      addresses.  [ULA-IN-WILD] provides more detailed situations on
      this issue.  Administrators may need a split DNS to separate the
      queries from internal and external for ULA entries and GUA
      entries.

4.3.  IPv4 Co-existence Considerations

   Generally, this document does not consider IPv4 to be in scope.  But
   regarding ULA, there is a special case needs to be recognized, which
   is described in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC5220].  When an enterprise has
   IPv4 Internet connectivity but does not yet have IPv6 Internet
   connectivity, and the enterprise wants to provide site-local IPv6
   connectivity, a ULA is the best choice for site-local IPv6
   connectivity.  Each employee host will have both an IPv4 global or
   private address and a ULA.  Here, when this host tries to connect to
   an outside node that has registered both A and AAAA records in the
   DNS, the host will choose AAAA as the destination address and the ULA
   for the source address according to the IPv6 preference of the
   default policy table defined in the old address selection standard
   [RFC3484].  This will clearly result in a connection failure.  The
   new address selection standard [RFC6724] has corrected this behavior
   by preferring IPv4 than ULAs in the default policy table.  However,
   there are still lots of hosts using the old standard [RFC3484], thus
   this could be an issue in real networks.

   Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555] solves this connection failure problem, but
   unwanted timeouts will obviously lower the user experience.  One
   possible approach to eliminating the timeouts is to deprecate the
   IPv6 default route and simply configure a scoped route on hosts (in
   the context of this document, only configure the ULA prefix routes).
   Another alternative is to configure IPv4 preference on the hosts, and
   not include DNS A records but only AAAA records for the internal
   nodes in the internal DNS server.  Then outside nodes have both A and
   AAAA records and can be connected through IPv4 as default and
   internal nodes can always connect through IPv6.  But since IPv6
   preference is default, changing the default in all nodes is not
   suitable at scale.








Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


5.  General Considerations For Using ULAs

5.1.  Do Not Treat ULA Equal to RFC1918

   ULA and [RFC1918] are similar in some aspects.  The most obvious one
   is as described in Section 3.1.3 that ULA provides an internal
   address independence capability in IPv6 that is similar to how
   [RFC1918] is commonly used.  ULA allows administrators to configure
   the internal network of each platform the same way it is configured
   in IPv4.  Many organizations have security policies and architectures
   based around the local-only routing of [RFC1918] addresses and those
   policies may directly map to ULA [RFC4864].

   But this does not mean that ULA is equal to an IPv6 version of
   [RFC1918] deployment.  [RFC1918] usually combines with NAT/NAPT for
   global connectivity.  But it is not necessary to combine ULAs with
   any kind of NAT.  Operators can use ULA for local communications
   along with global addresses for global communications (see
   Section 4.2.2).  This is a big advantage brought by default support
   of multiple-addresses-per-interface feature in IPv6.  (People may
   still have a requirement for NAT with ULA, this is discussed in
   Section 4.2.1.  But people also need to keep in mind that ULA is not
   intentionally designed for this kind of use case.)

   Another important difference is the ability to merge two ULA networks
   without renumbering (because of the uniqueness), which is a big
   advantage over [RFC1918].

5.2.  Using ULAs in a Limited Scope

   A ULA is by definition a prefix that is never advertised outside a
   given domain, and is used within that domain by agreement of those
   networked by the domain.

   So when using ULAs in a network, the administrators need to clearly
   set the scope of the ULAs and configure ACLs on relevant border
   routers to block them out of the scope.  And if internal DNS is
   enabled, the administrators might also need to use internal-only DNS
   names for ULAs and might need to split the DNS so that the internal
   DNS server includes records that are not presented in the external
   DNS server.

6.  ULA Usages Considered Helpful








Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


6.1.  Used in Isolated Networks

   As analyzed in Section 4.1, ULA is very suitable for isolated
   networks.  Especially when there are subnets in the isolated network,
   ULA is a reasonable choice.

6.2.  ULA along with PA

   As described in Section 4.2.2, using ULAs along with PA addresses to
   provide a logically separated local plane can benefit OAM functions
   and renumbering.

6.3.  Some Specific Use Cases

   Along with the general scenarios, this section provides some specific
   use cases that could benefit from using ULA.

6.3.1.  Special Routing

   For various reasons the administrators may want to have private
   routing be controlled and separated from other routing.  For example,
   in the business-to-business case described in
   [I-D.baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing], two companies might want to
   use direct connectivity that only connects stated machines, such as a
   silicon foundry with client engineers that use it.  A ULA provides a
   simple way to assign prefixes that would be used in accordance with
   an agreement between the parties.

6.3.2.  Used as NAT64 Prefix

   The NAT64 PREF64 is just a group of local fake addresses for the
   DNS64 to point traffic to a NAT64.  Using a ULA prefix as the PREF64
   easily ensures that only local systems can use the translation
   resources of the NAT64 system since the ULA is not intended to be
   globally routable.  The ULA helps clearly identify traffic that is
   locally contained and destined to a NAT64.  Using ULA for PREF64 is
   deployed and it is an operational model.

   But there is an issue needs to be noted.  The NAT64 standard
   [RFC6146] specifies that the PREF64 should align with [RFC6052], in
   which the IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Address format was specified.  If we
   pick a /48 for NAT64, it happens to be a standard 48/ part of ULA
   (7bit ULA well-known prefix+ 1 "L" bit + 40bit Global ID).  Then the
   40bit of ULA is not violated by being filled with part of the 32bit
   IPv4 address.  This is important, because the 40bit assures the
   uniqueness of ULA.  If the prefix is shorter than /48, the 40bit
   would be violated, and this could cause conformance issues.  But it
   is considered that the most common use case will be a /96 PREF64, or



Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


   even /64 will be used.  So it seems this issue is not common in
   current practice.

   It is most common that ULA PREF64 will be deployed on a single
   internal network, where the clients and the NAT64 share a common
   internal network.  ULA will not be effective as PREF64 when the
   access network must use an Internet transit to receive the
   translation service of a NAT64 since the ULA will not route across
   the Internet.

   According to the default address selection table specified in
   [RFC6724], the host would always prefer IPv4 over ULA.  This could be
   a problem in NAT64-CGN scenario as analyzed in Section 8 of
   [RFC7269].  So administrators need to add additional site-specific
   address selection rules to the default table to steer traffic flows
   going through NAT64-CGN.  However, updating the default policy tables
   in all hosts involves significant management cost.  This may be
   possible in an enterprise (using a group policy object, or other
   configuration mechanisms), but it is not suitable at scale for home
   networks.

6.3.3.  Used as Identifier

   ULAs could be self-generated and easily grabbed from the standard
   IPv6 stack.  And ULAs don't need to be changed as the GUA prefixes
   do.  So they are very suitable to be used as identifiers by the up
   layer applications.  And since ULA is not intended to be globally
   routed, it is not harmful to the routing system.

   Such kind of benefit has been utilized in real implementations.  For
   example, in [RFC6281], the protocol BTMM (Back To My Mac) needs to
   assign a topology-independent identifier to each client host
   according to the following considerations:

   o  TCP connections between two end hosts wish to survive in network
      changes.

   o  Sometimes one needs a constant identifier to be associated with a
      key so that the Security Association can survive the location
      changes.

   It needs to be noticed again that in theory ULA has the possibility
   of collision.  However, the probability is desirably small enough and
   can be ignored in most cases when ULAs are used as identifiers.







Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


7.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations regarding ULAs, in general, please refer to
   the ULA specification [RFC4193].  Also refer to [RFC4864], which
   shows how ULAs help with local network protection.

   As mentioned in Section 4.2.2, when using NPTv6, the administrators
   need to know where the firewall is located to set proper filtering
   rules.

   Also as mentioned in Section 4.2.2, if administrators choose not to
   do reverse DNS delegation inside their local control of ULA prefixes,
   a significant amount of information about the ULA population may leak
   to the outside world.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo has no actions for IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Many valuable comments were received in the IETF v6ops WG mail list,
   especially from Cameron Byrne, Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Lee
   Howard, Victor Kuarsingh, Alexandru Petrescu, Mikael Abrahamsson, Tim
   Chown, Jen Linkova, Christopher Palmer Jong-Hyouk Lee, Mark Andrews,
   Lorenzo Colitti, Ted Lemon, Joel Jaeggli, David Farmer, Doug Barton,
   Owen Delong, Gert Doering, Bill Jouris, Bill Cerveny, Dave Thaler,
   Nick Hilliard, Jan Zorz, Randy Bush, Anders Brandt, , Sofiane Imadali
   and Wesley George.

   Some test of using ULA in the lab was done by our research partner
   BNRC-BUPT (Broad Network Research Centre in Beijing University of
   Posts and Telecommunications).  Thanks for the work of Prof.
   Xiangyang Gong and student Dengjia Xu.

   Tom Taylor did a language review and revision throught the whole
   document.  The authors appreciate a lot for his help.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]
   (initially prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.).

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.




Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing]
              Baker, F., "Business to Business Private Routing", draft-
              baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing-00 (work in progress),
              July 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem]
              Liu, B., Jiang, S., Bonica, R., Gong, X., and W. Wang,
              "DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem
              Statement", draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-03 (work
              in progress), October 2014.

   [I-D.jhlee-mext-mnpp]
              Tsukada, M., Ernst, T., and J. Lee, "Mobile Network Prefix
              Provisioning", draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00 (work in
              progress), October 2009.

   [I-D.petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing]
              Petrescu, A., Janneteau, C., Demailly, N., and S. Imadali,
              "Router Advertisements for Routing between Moving
              Networks", draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-05
              (work in progress), July 2014.

   [MIL-STD-1397]
              "Military Standard, Input/Output Interfaces, Standard
              Digital Data, Navy Systems (MIL-STD-1397B), 3 March 1989".

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
              5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC2993]  Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
              November 2000.

   [RFC3027]  Holdrege, M. and P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications
              with the IP Network Address Translator", RFC 3027, January
              2001.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.




Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


   [RFC3879]  Huitema, C. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating Site Local
              Addresses", RFC 3879, September 2004.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.

   [RFC4192]  Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
              Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
              September 2005.

   [RFC4864]  Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
              E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
              May 2007.

   [RFC5220]  Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
              "Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-
              Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484
              Default Rules", RFC 5220, July 2008.

   [RFC5902]  Thaler, D., Zhang, L., and G. Lebovitz, "IAB Thoughts on
              IPv6 Network Address Translation", RFC 5902, July 2010.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              October 2010.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

   [RFC6281]  Cheshire, S., Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang,
              "Understanding Apple's Back to My Mac (BTMM) Service", RFC
              6281, June 2011.

   [RFC6296]  Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
              Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.

   [RFC7084]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
              Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
              November 2013.




Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Considerations For Using ULAs             May 2015


   [RFC7269]  Chen, G., Cao, Z., Xie, C., and D. Binet, "NAT64
              Deployment Options and Experience", RFC 7269, June 2014.

   [RS-485]   "Electronic Industries Association (1983). Electrical
              Characteristics of Generators and Receivers for Use in
              Balanced Multipoint Systems. EIA Standard RS-485.".

   [SCADA]    "Boyer, Stuart A. (2010). SCADA Supervisory Control and
              Data Acquisition. USA: ISA - International Society of
              Automation.".

   [ULA-IN-WILD]
              "G. Michaelson, "conference.apnic.net/data/36/apnic-
              36-ula_1377495768.pdf"".

Authors' Addresses

   Bing Liu
   Huawei Technologies
   Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
   P.R. China

   Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com


   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies
   Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com


















Liu & Jiang             Expires November 3, 2015               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/