| Internet-Draft | Unintended Operational Issues With ULA | July 2022 |
| Buraglio, et al. | Expires 28 January 2023 | [Page] |
The behavior of ULA addressing as defined by [RFC6724] is preferred below legacy IPv4 addressing, thus rendering ULA IPv6 deployment functionally unusable in IPv4 / IPv6 dual-stacked environments. This behavior is counter to the operational behavior of GUA IPv6 addressing on nearly all modern operating systems that leverage a preference model based on [RFC6724] .¶
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 https://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 28 January 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
In modern IPv4 / IPv6 dual-stacked environments, ULA addressing and GUA IPv6 addressing exhibit opposite behavior, which creates difficulties in deployments leveraging ULA addressing. This conflicting behavior carries planning, operational, and security implications for environments requiring ULA addressing with IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack and prioritization of IPv6 traffic by default, as is the behavior with IPv6 GUA addressing.¶
The [RFC6724] definition is incomplete for ULA precedence if a host is operating in a dual-stack environment. As written, [RFC6724] section 10.3 states "The default policy table gives IPv6 addresses higher precedence than IPv4 addresses. This means that applications will use IPv6 in preference to IPv4 when the two are equally suitable. An administrator can change the policy table to prefer IPv4 addresses by giving the ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 prefix a higher precedence" Expected behavior would be that ULA address space would be preferred over legacy IPv4, however this is not the case. This presents an acute issue with any environment that will use ULA addressing along side legacy IPv4 that is counter to the standard expectations for legacy IPv4 / IPv6 dual-stack behavior of preferring IPv6, as is performed with GUA addressing. Further, [RFC6724] Section 10.6 states that this is resolvable by adding a site-specific policy to cause ULAs within a site to be preferred over global addresses. While theoretically possible, this presents signnificant issues on devices with inaccessable configuration files as detailed below.¶
There are demonstrated and easily repeatible uses cases of ULA not being preferred in some OS and network equipment over legacy IPv4 that necessitate the immediate update to [RFC6724] to better reflect the original intent of the RFC. As with most adjustments to standards, and using [RFC6724] itself as a measurment, this update will likely take between 8-20 years to become common enough for relatively consistent behavior within operating systems. As a reference, as of the time of this writing, it has been 10 years since [RFC6724] has been published but we continue to see existing commercial and open source operating systems exhibiting [RFC3484] behavior. While it should be noted that [RFC6724] defines a solution that is functional academically, operationally the solution of adjusting the address preference selection table is both operating system dependent and unable to be signalled by any network mechanism such as within a router advertisement, DHCPv6 option, or the like. This lack of an intra-protocol or network-based ability to adjust address selection preference, along with the inability to adjust a notable number of operating systems either programmatically or manually renders operational scalability of such a mechanism functionally untenable. It is anticipated that any update of [RFC6724]would require an additional 8-20 years to be fully realized and properly implemented in a majority of network connected systems. In addition, in the current versions of Linux, the priority table (gai.conf) still makes reference to [RFC3484], further demonstrating the long timeframe to have updates reflected in a current, modern operating system. Examples of such out-of-date behavior can be found in printers, cameras, fixed devices, IoT sensors, and longer lifecycle equipment. It is especially important to note this behavior in the long lifecycle equipment that exists in industrial control and operational techology environments due to their very long mean time to replacement. The core issue is the stated interpretation from gai.conf that has the following default:¶
#scopev4 <mask> <value> # Add another rule to the RFC 6724 scope table for IPv4 addresses. # By default the scope IDs described in section 3.2 in RFC 6724 are # used. Changing these defaults should hardly ever be necessary. # The defaults are equivalent to: # #scopev4 ::ffff:169.254.0.0/112 2 #scopev4 ::ffff:127.0.0.0/104 2 #scopev4 ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 14
Notice that they are interpreting the legacy IPv4 address range as "scopev4" and the prefix ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 which has a higher precedence (35) in [RFC6724] then the ULA prefix of fc00::/7 (3). This results in legacy IPv4 being preferred over IPv6 ULA.¶
The operational outcome is the move to dual-stack with ULA is inconsistent and imparts unnecessary difficulty for both troubleshooting and creating the baseline expected behavior which are both requirements for deployments. This results in operational and engineering teams not gaining IPv6 experience as limited traffic is actually using IPv6, and security baseline expectations are inconsistent at best and haphazard at worst.¶
In practice, [RFC6724] imposes several operational shortcomings preventing both consistent and desired behavior. If we define "desired behavior" as IPv6 preference over legacy IPv4 for address and protocol selection, then the resulting implemented behavior, based on [RFC6724] , will fall short of that intent. Based on the current verbiage, dual-stacked hosts configured with both a legacy IPv4 address and an IPv6 ULA address, the resulting behavior will manifest as a host choosing IPv4 over ULA IPv6. This behavior deviates from the current goal of a host with legacy IPv4 address and also with an IPv6 GUA address preferring IPv6 over IPv4. Operationally and strategically, this manifests as an impediment to deployment of IPv6 for many non-service provider and mobile networks phasing in dual-stacked (both legacy IPv4 and IPv6) networking with the expectation of consistent behavior (alway use IPv6 before legacy IPv4).¶
Other operational considerations are the use of the policy table detailed in section 2.1 of [RFC6724] . While conceptually the intent was for a configurable, longest-match table to be adjusted as-needed. In practice, modifying the prefix policy table remains difficult across platforms, and in some cases impossible. Embedded, proprietary, closed source, and IoT devices are especially difficult to adjust and are, in many cases, incapable of any adjustment whatsoever. Large scale manipulation of the policy table also remains out of the realm of realistic support for small and medium scale operators due to lack of ability to manipulate all the hosts and systems, or a lack of tooling and access.¶
Below is an example of a gai.conf file from a modern Linux installation as of 03 April 2022:¶
# Configuration for getaddrinfo(3). # # So far only configuration for the destination address sorting is needed. # RFC 3484 governs the sorting. But the RFC also says that system # administrators should be able to overwrite the defaults. This can be # achieved here. # # All lines have an initial identifier specifying the option followed by # up to two values. Information specified in this file replaces the # default information. Complete absence of data of one kind causes the # appropriate default information to be used. The supported commands include: # # reload <yes|no> # If set to yes, each getaddrinfo(3) call will check whether this file # changed and if necessary reload. This option should not really be # used. There are possible runtime problems. The default is no. # # label <mask> <value> # Add another rule to the RFC 3484 label table. See section 2.1 in # RFC 3484. The default is: # #label ::1/128 0 #label ::/0 1 #label 2002::/16 2 #label ::/96 3 #label ::ffff:0:0/96 4 #label fec0::/10 5 #label fc00::/7 6 #label 2001:0::/32 7 # # This default differs from the tables given in RFC 3484 by handling # (now obsolete) site-local IPv6 addresses and Unique Local Addresses. # The reason for this difference is that these addresses are never # NATed while IPv4 site-local addresses most probably are. Given # the precedence of IPv6 over IPv4 (see below) on machines having only # site-local IPv4 and IPv6 addresses a lookup for a global address would # see the IPv6 be preferred. The result is a long delay because the # site-local IPv6 addresses cannot be used while the IPv4 address is # (at least for the foreseeable future) NATed. We also treat Teredo # tunnels special. # # precedence <mask> <value> # Add another rule to the RFC 3484 precedence table. See section 2.1 # and 10.3 in RFC 3484. The default is: # #precedence ::1/128 50 #precedence ::/0 40 #precedence 2002::/16 30 #precedence ::/96 20 #precedence ::ffff:0:0/96 10 # # For sites which prefer IPv4 connections change the last line to # #precedence ::ffff:0:0/96 100 # # scopev4 <mask> <value> # Add another rule to the RFC 6724 scope table for IPv4 addresses. # By default the scope IDs described in section 3.2 in RFC 6724 are # used. Changing these defaults should hardly ever be necessary. # The defaults are equivalent to: # #scopev4 ::ffff:169.254.0.0/112 2 #scopev4 ::ffff:127.0.0.0/104 2 #scopev4 ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 14
Several assumptions are made here and are largely based on interpretations of [RFC6724] but are not operationally relevant in modern networks. As this file or an equivalent structure within a given operating system is referenced, it dictates the behavior of the getaddrinfo() or analogous process. More specifically, where getaddrinfo() or comparable API is used, the sorting behavior should take into account both the source address of the requesting host as well as the destination addresses returned and sort according to both source and destination addressing, i.e, when a ULA address is returned, the source address selection should return and use a ULA address if available. Similarly, if a GUA address is returned the source address selection should return a GUA source address if available.¶
Here are some example failure modes:¶
Per number 3, even a host choosing a destination with A and AAAA DNS records, the host in question will choose the A record to get an legacy IPv4 address for the destination, meaning ULA IPv6 is rendered completely unused. It is also notable that Happy Eyeballs ([RFC8305] ) will not change the source address selection process on a host. Happy Eyeballs will only modify the destination sorting process.¶
As a direct result of the described failure modes, and in addition to the aforementioned operational implications, use of ULA is not a viable option for dual-stack \ networking transition planning, large scale network modeling, network lab environments or other modes of emulating a large scale networking that runs both IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently.¶
None at this time.¶
Such unexpected behavior can result in odd operational outcomes which can result in serious security and compliance issues and could, in some cases, result in disabling of IPv6 to acheive compliance and consistency. .¶
The authors acknowledge the work of Brian Carpenter, David Farmer, Bob Hinden, Mark Andrews, Vasilenko Eduardand, and Mark Smith for participation in the technical discussions leading to this finding and Michael Ackermann, Tom Coffeen, Kevin Myers, and Ed Horley for providing further testing and operational input.¶