Internet Engineering Task Force                                   B. Liu
Internet-Draft                                                  S. Jiang
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 5, 2015                                    July 4, 2014

             Considerations of Using Unique Local Addresses


   This document provides considerations of how to use ULAs.  It
   analyzes ULA usage scenarios and considers some use cases of ULA
   addresses as helpful.

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

   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 January 5, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   ( 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 January 5, 2015                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

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.  Enumeration of Scenarios Using ULAs . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Isolated Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Connected Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  ULA-Only Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.2.  ULAs along with PA Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  IPv4 Co-existence Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  General Guidelines of Using ULA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     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 on isolated networks, internal
   networks, and VPNs .etc.  Although ULAs may be treated like global
   scope by applications, normally they should not be used on the
   publicly Internet.  Since site-local addresses are deprecated in
   [RFC3879], ULAs could be alternatives of site-local addresses in some
   situations (but they are not equal).

   However, 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 January 5, 2015                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "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

3.  Analysis of ULA Features

3.1.  Automatically Generated

   ULA prefixes could be automatically generated according to the
   algorithms described in [RFC4193].  This feature allows automatic
   prefixes allocation, thus one can get a network work immediately
   without applying 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 the hosts 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 makes merging of networks simple and without the need to renumber
   overlapping IP address space.  Overlapping is cited as a deficiency
   with how [RFC1918] addresses were deployed, and ULA was designed to
   overcome this deficiency.

   Note that as described in [RFC4864], in practice, applications may
   treat ULAs like global-scope addresses, but address selection
   algorithms may need to distinguish between ULAs and ordinary GUA
   (Global-scope Unicast Address) to ensure bidirectional
   communications.  (Note: the new address selection standard has
   supported this in the default policy table.  [RFC6724])

3.3.  Independent Address Space

   ULAs provide internal address independence in IPv6 that they can be
   used for internal communications without having any permanent or only
   intermittent Internet connectivity.  And it needs no registration so
   that it can support on-demand usage and does not carry any RIR/LIR
   documentation/fees burden or disclosures.

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

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

3.4.  Well Known Prefix

   The prefixes of ULAs are well known thus they are easy to be
   identified and filtered.

   This feature is convenient for management of security policies and
   troubleshooting.  For example, the administrators can decide what
   parameters have to be assembled or transmitted globally, by a
   separate function, through an appropriate gateway/firewall, to the
   Internet or to the telecom network.

3.5.  Stable or Temporary Prefix

   A ULA prefix can be generated once, at installation time or factory
   reset, and then probably never be changed.  Alternatively, it could
   be regenerated regularly, if desired for some reason.

4.  Enumeration 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 interface
   like [MIL-STD-1397] began to use IP protocol.  In such kind of
   networks, the system might lack the ability/requirement of connecting
   to the Internet or explicitly designed not to connect.

   Besides, there might be some networks which could connect to the
   Internet, but prohibited by administration or just temporally not
   connected.  These networks may include machine-to-machine (e.g.
   vehicle networks), sensor networks, or even normal LANs, which may
   include very large numbers of addresses.

   Since the serious disadvantages and impact on applications by
   ambiguous address space have been well documented in [RFC1918], ULA
   is a straightforward way to assign the IP addresses in these kinds of
   networks 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, devices types,
   services and more.

   However, each isolated network has the possibility to be connected in
   the future.  The administrators need to consider following things:

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

   o  If it connects to another isolated/private network, then comes the
      collision problem.  However, if the ULAs were generated by the
      standard way, this won't be a big problem.

   o  If it connects to the global Internet, then need some operation to
      add a new global prefix and ensure the address selection policy in
      the proper form.

   If these further operations/considerations are unacceptable for some
   reasons, then the administrators need to be careful with using ULAs
   in current isolated networks.

   Benefits of using ULAs in isolated networks:

   o  No cost of fees or operational burden of applying GUA prefix(es)
      from RIR/LIR

   o  Could be used instantly on-demand

   o  Scalable to support multiple subnets

   o  Extremely low probability of collision when isolated networks


   o  The uniqueness of the global ULA prefix is not guaranteed,
      however, the probability of collision is extremely low.

   Operational considerations:

   o  Prefix generation: Randomly generated according to the algorithms
      defined in [RFC4193] or literally assigned by human.  Normally, it
      is recommended to following the standard way to automatically
      generate the prefixes; if there are some specific reasons that
      need to be assigned by human, the administrators must carefully
      plan the prefixes to avoid collision.

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

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

4.2.  Connected Network

4.2.1.  ULA-Only Deployment

   In some situations, hosts/interfaces are assigned with ULA-only, but
   the networks need to communicate with the outside.  It mainly
   includes the following two models.

   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 a use case.  Although NPTv6 works differently to
         traditional stateful NAT/NAPT (which is discouraged in
         [RFC5902]), it also introduces some similar additional
         complexity to applications, which might cause applications to

         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 delegate the outgoing/incoming connections.

         In some environments (e.g.  Information security sensitive
         enterprise or government), the endpoints are default
         disconnected to the Internet, and need the proxies to connect
         for central control.  In IPv4, using private address space with
         proxies is an effective and common practice for this purpose,
         and it is natural to pick ULA in IPv6.

   Benefits of using ULAs in this scenario:

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


   o  The serious disadvantages and impact on applications by NAT have
      been well documented in [RFC2993] and [RFC3027].  Although NPTv6
      is a mechanism that has fewer architectural problems than merely

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

      implementing a traditional stateful Network Address Translator in
      an IPv6 environment [RFC6296], it still beaks the end-to-end
      transparency which is in general not recommended by the IETF.

   Operational considerations:

   o  Firewall deployment: as described in [RFC6296], firewall is
      recommended to be implemented with NPTv6 translator.  Then the
      administrators need to know about where the firewall is located.

      -  If the firewall is located outside the NPTv6 translator, then
         the filtering is based on the translated GUA prefixes, and when
         the internal ULA prefixes are renumbered, the filtering rules
         don't need to be changed (however, when GUA prefixes of the
         NPTv6 are renumbered, the filtering rules need to be updated

      -  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 according to the ULA prefixes renumbering (but
         don't need to update when NPTv6 GUA prefixes are renumbered.).

4.2.2.  ULAs along with PA Addresses

   There are two classes of network probably 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 some
      an ISP.  And besides, they may need internal routed networking
      even when the ISP link is down.  Then ULA is a proper tool to fit
      the requirement.  And in [RFC6204], it requires the CPE to support
      ULA.  Note, ULAs provide more benefit for multiple-segment home
      networks; for home networks only containing 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 could be used for internal
      connectivity redundancy and better internal connectivity or
      isolation of certain functions like OAM of 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 globally routing plane.  The benefit is to ensure stable

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

      and specific local communication regardless of the ISP uplink
      failure.  This benefit is especially meaningful for the home
      network or 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 whole network because of changing ISPs, ISPs
      restructure their address allocations, or whatever reasons.  In
      these situations, ULA is an effective tool for the internal-only
      nodes.  Besides the internal-only nodes, the public nodes can also
      benefit from ULA for renumbering.  When renumbering, as [RFC4192]
      suggested, it has a period to keep using the old prefix(es) before
      the new prefix(es) is(are) stable.  In the process of adding new
      prefix(es) and deprecating old prefix(es), it is not easy to keep
      the local communication immune of global routing plane change.  If
      we use ULAs for the local communication, the separated local
      routing plane can isolate the affecting by global routing change.


   o  Operational Complexity: there are some arguments that in practice
      the ULA+PA makes additional operational complexity.  It is not a
      ULA-specific problem; the multiple-addresses-per-interface is an
      important feature of IPv6 protocol.  Never the less, running
      multiple prefixes needs more operational considerations than
      running a single one.

   Operational considerations:

   o  Default Routing: connectivity might be broken if ULAs are used as
      default route.  When using RIO (Route Information Option) in
      [RFC4191], specific routs would be added without a default route,
      thus bad user experience of timeouts on ICMPv6 redirects are
      avoided.  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 should 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

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

      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.  In
      [RFC6724], it claimed that a site-specific policy entry can be
      used to cause ULAs within a site to be preferred over global

   o  DNS relevant: if administrators chose not to do reverse DNS
      delegation inside of their local control of ULA prefixes, a
      significant amount of information about the ULA population might
      leak to the outside world.  Because reverse queries will be made
      and naturally routed to the global reverse tree, so people will be
      exposed to the existence of population the ULA uses, not in
      traffic terms, but in knowledge terms.  [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 relevant as in the
   scope But regarding ULA, there is a special case needs to be noticed,
   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 address selection policy.  This will clearly result in a
   connection failure.

   Although with Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555] this connection failure
   problem could be solved, but unwanted timeouts would obviously lower
   the user experience.  One possible approach of eliminating the
   timeouts is deprecating IPv6 default route and simply configuring a
   scoped route on hosts (in the context of this document, only
   configure the ULA prefix routes).  Another alternative is configuring
   IPv4 preference on the hosts, and not including DNS A records but
   only AAAA records for the internal nodes in the internal DNS server,

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

   then outside nodes have both A and AAAA records could be connected
   through IPv4 as default and internal nodes could be always connected
   through IPv6.  But since IPv6 preference is default, changing the
   default in all nodes is not suitable at scale.

5.  General Guidelines of Using ULA

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 it doesn't mean ULA is equal to an IPv6 version of [RFC1918]
   deployment.  [RFC1918] usually combines with NAT/NAPT for global
   connectivity.  But it is not necessarily to combine ULAs with any
   kind of NAT.  People could use ULA for local communications along
   with global addresses for global communications (see Section 6.2).
   This is a big advantage brought by default support of multiple-
   addresses-per-interface feature in IPv6.  (People might still have
   requirement of ULA with NAT, this is discussed in Section 4.2.1.  But
   people also should 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 should 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 are
   enabled, the administrators might also need to use internal-only DNS
   names for ULAs and should split the DNS so that the internal DNS
   server includes records that are not presented in the external DNS

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

6.  ULA Usages Considered Helpful

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 the benefits described in Section 4.2.2, using ULAs along with PA
   addresses to provide a logically separated local plane could benefit
   to 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 might want to have private
   routing be controlled and separated from other routing.  For example,
   in the b2b 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 such
   prefixes that would be used in accordance with an agreement between
   the parties.

6.3.2.  Used as NAT64 Prefix

   Since the NAT64 pref64 is just a group of local fake addresses for
   the DNS64 to point traffic to a NAT64, When using a ULA prefix as the
   pref64, it could 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 and helps clearly identify traffic
   that is locally contained and destine to a NAT64.  Using ULA for
   Pref64 is deployed and it is an operational model.

   But there's an issue should be noticed.  The NAT64 standard [RFC6146]
   mentioned the pref64 should align with [RFC6052], in which the
   IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Address format was specified.  If we pick a /48
   for NAT64, it happened to be a standard 48/ part of ULA (7bit ULA
   famous prefix+ 1 "L" bit + 40bit Global ID).  Then the 40bit of ULA
   is not violated to be 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

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

   this may cause conformance issue.  But it is considered that the most
   common use case will be a /96 PREF64, or 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

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

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

   It should be noticed again that in theory ULA has the possibility of
   collision.  However, the probability is desirable small enough and
   could be ignored by most of the cases when used as identifiers.

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

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 5.2.1, when use NPTv6, the administrators
   need to know about where the firewall is located to set proper
   filtering rules.

   As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, if administrators chose not to do
   reverse DNS delegation inside their local control of ULA prefixes, a
   significant amount of information about the ULA population might leak
   to the outside world.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA considerations should be updated to point to [RFC4193] in a
   similar manner to section 5.

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.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]
   (initially prepared using

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.

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

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

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

10.2.  Informative References

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

              Liu, B., Bonica, R., Gong, X., and W. Wang, "DHCPv6/SLAAC
              Address Configuration Interaction Problem Statement",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 (work in
              progress), June 2014.

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

              Petrescu, A., Janneteau, C., Demailly, N., and S. Imadali,
              "Router Advertisements for Routing between Moving
              Networks", draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-04
              (work in progress), October 2013.

              "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

   [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.

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 2014

   [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.

   [RFC6204]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", RFC 6204, 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.

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

Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        Considerations of Using ULAs             July 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.", .

              "G. Michaelson, "
              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


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


Liu & Jiang              Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 16]