



6MAN                                                         N. Buraglio
Internet-Draft                                   Energy Sciences Network
Updates: 6724 (if approved)                                     T. Chown
Intended status: Standards Track                                    Jisc
Expires: 12 February 2026                                      J. Duncan
                                                        Tachyon Dynamics
                                                          11 August 2025


  Prioritizing known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy
                   draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update-25

Abstract

   This document updates the default address selection algorithm for
   Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6), originally specified in RFC 6724,
   based on accumulated operational experience.  It introduces the
   concept of "known-local" Unique Local Address (ULA) prefixes within
   the fd00::/8 block and specifies that ULA-to-ULA communications using
   such prefixes should be preferred over both IPv4-to-IPv4 and GUA-to-
   GUA (Global Unicast Address) communications in local use scenarios.
   The document defines mechanisms for nodes to identify and incorporate
   known-local prefixes into their address selection policy tables.  It
   introduces a requirement to implement Rule 5.5 of RFC 6724 and
   reduces the default precedence for 6to4 addresses.  These updates
   enhance the supportability of typical deployment environments,
   including automatic and unmanaged configurations, and promote
   consistent IPv6-over-IPv4 precedence behavior for both ULA and GUA
   within local networks.  The document acknowledges that certain
   atypical deployment models may require explicit configuration to
   achieve intended operational outcomes.

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 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 12 February 2026.



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Operational Issues Regarding Precedence for IPv4 addresses
           over ULAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Precedence of 6to4 addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Adjustments to RFC 6724 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Policy Table Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Rule 5.5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Automatic insertion of known-local ULA prefixes into the
           policy table  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Configuration of the default policy table . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Intended behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  GUA-GUA preferred over IPv4-IPv4  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  GUA-GUA preferred over ULA-ULA  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Known-local ULA - Known-local ULA preferred over
           GUA-GUA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  Known-local ULA-known-local ULA preferred over
           IPv4-IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.5.  IPv4-IPv4 preferred over ULA-GUA  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Discussion of ULA source with GUA or remote ULA
           destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  The ULA Label and its Precedence  . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Happy Eyeballs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.3.  Try the Next Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Following ULA operational guidelines in RFC4193 . . . . . . .  15
     7.1.  Filtering ULA-source addresses at site borders  . . . . .  15
     7.2.  Avoid using ULA addresses in the global DNS . . . . . . .  15
   8.  The practicalities of implementing address selection
           support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Limitations of RFC6724  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   14. Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   15. Summary of changes and additional text since RFC6724  . . . .  18
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   Since its publication in 2012, Default Address Selection for Internet
   Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [RFC6724] has become an important mechanism
   by which nodes can perform address selection, deriving the most
   appropriate source and destination address pair to use from a
   candidate set by following the procedures defined in the RFC.  Part
   of the process involves the use of a policy table, where the
   precedence and labels for address prefixes are listed, and for which
   a default policy table is defined.

   It was always expected that the default policy table may need to be
   changed based on operational experience; section 2.1 of [RFC6724]
   states "It is important that implementations provide a way to change
   the default policies as more experience is gained" and points to the
   examples in Section 10 of the same document, which include
   Section 10.6 where a unique local address (ULA as defined in
   [RFC4193]) example is presented.

   This document is written on the basis of such operational experience,
   in particular for scenarios where ULAs are used for their intended
   purpose as stated in [RFC4193], i.e., they are designed to be routed
   within a local site and by default not advertised, used or received
   from external locations to that site.  The document defines how
   preference for ULAs may be elevated for appropriate, common
   scenarios.

   To support the preference to use ULA address pairs over both IPv4 and
   GUA (Global Unicast Address as defined in [RFC3587]) address pairs
   for local intra-site scenarios, the concept of a "known-local" ULA
   address is introduced.  This document describes the means for nodes
   to determine ULA prefixes that are known to be local to the site they
   are operating in and to insert those prefixes into their policy table
   with a label that differs from general ULA prefixes.  This capability
   allows nodes to prefer ULA-ULA communication locally, but still use
   GUA-GUA address pairs for external communication, and importantly
   avoid selecting a ULA source to talk to a non-local ULA destination.





Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   This document also reinforces the text in Section 5 of [RFC6724] to
   require support for Rule 5.5.

   Section 3.1 of [RFC4193] defines ULAs within fc00::/7, where the L
   bit, as detailed in Section 3.1, is set to 1 for locally assigned
   (generated) prefixes, with L=0 as yet undefined.  The use of known-
   locals as described in this document therefore applies to the
   currently used ULA prefixes under fd00::/8, where the prefixes
   conform to the definition in Section 3.1 of [RFC4193].

   The overall goal of this update is to improve behavior for common
   scenarios, and to assist in the phasing out of use of IPv4, while
   noting that some specific scenarios may still require explicit
   configuration.

   An IPv6 deployment, whether enterprise, residential or other, may use
   combinations of IPv6 GUAs, IPv6 ULAs, IPv4 global addresses, IPv4
   RFC1918 addresses, and may or may not use some form of NAT.  However,
   this document makes no comment or recommendation on how ULAs are
   used, or on the use of NAT in an IPv6 network.

1.1.  Operational Issues Regarding Precedence for IPv4 addresses over
      ULAs

   With multi-addressing being the norm for IPv6, more so where nodes
   are dual-stack, the ability for a node to pick an appropriate address
   pair for communication is very important.

   Where getaddrinfo() as referenced in [RFC3493], or a comparable API
   is used, the sorting behavior should take into account both the
   source addresses of the requesting node as well as the destination
   addresses returned, and sort the candidate address pairs following
   the procedures defined in RFC6724.

   The current default policy table leads to precedence for use of IPv6
   GUAs over IPv4 global addresses, which is widely considered
   preferential behavior to support greater use of IPv6 in dual-stack
   environments.  This helps in allowing sites to phase out IPv4 as its
   evidenced use becomes ever lower.

   However, there are two issues with precedence, or rather non-
   precedence, for ULAs as originally defined in RFC6724.

   First, the aforementioned default policy table places IPv6 ULAs below
   all IPv4 addresses, including [RFC1918] addresses, such that
   IPv4-IPv4 address pairs are favored over ULA-ULA address pairs.
   Given the IPv6 GUA preference, this could create difficulties with
   respect to planning, operational, and security implications for



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   environments where ULA addresses are used in IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack
   network scenarios.  The expected default prioritization of known-
   local IPv6 traffic over IPv4 by default, as happens with IPv6 GUA
   addresses, does not happen for ULAs.

   As a result, the use of ULAs is not a viable option for dual-stack
   networking transition planning, large scale network modeling, network
   lab environments or other modes of large scale networking that run
   both IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently with the expectation that IPv6 will
   be preferred by default.  Local preference of ULAs over IPv4 is thus
   important to assist administrators in phasing out IPv4 from dual-
   stack environments and is an important enabler for sites seeking to
   move from dual-stack to IPv6-only networking.

   Additionally, an issue exists in the scenario where nodes in a dual-
   stack site are addressed from both ULA and GUA prefixes, RFC6724 will
   see GUA-GUA address pairs chosen over ULA-ULA.  One goal of ULA
   addresses was to allow local communications to be independent of the
   availability of external connectivity and addresses, such that
   persistent ULAs can be used even when the global prefix made
   available to a site is withdrawn or changes.

   This document therefore introduces two changes to RFC6724 to require
   that nodes implement elevated or differential precedence for known-
   local ULAs, i.e., ULAs within a common local network, over both IPv4
   and IPv6 GUAs.

   The first change is an update to the default policy table to elevate
   the precedence for ULAs prefixes such that ULAs, like GUAs, carry a
   higher precedence than all IPv4 addresses, making IPv6 precedence
   over IPv4 consistent for both ULAs and GUAs.

   The second change is the introduction of the concept of known-local
   ULAs.  RFC6724 includes a method by which nodes may provide more
   fine-grained support for further elevating the preference for
   specific ULA prefixes, while leaving other general ULA prefixes at
   the precedence described in the previous paragraph.  This document
   elevates the requirement for specific ULA prefixes to be inserted
   into the policy table to be a requirement, but only for observed
   prefixes that are known to be local, i.e., known-local ULAs.

   These changes aim to improve the default handling of address
   selection for common cases, and unmanaged / automatic scenarios
   rather than those where DHCPv6 is deployed.  The changes are
   discussed in more detail in the following sections, with a further
   section providing a summary of the proposed updates.





Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


1.2.  Precedence of 6to4 addresses

   The anycast prefix for 6to4 relays was formally deprecated by
   [RFC7526] in 2015, and since that time the use of 6to4 addresses has
   further declined, with very little evidence of its use on the public
   Internet.  Note that RFC7526 does not deprecate the 6to4 IPv6 prefix
   2002::/16, it only deprecates the 6to4 Relay IPv4 prefix.

   This document therefore demotes the precedence of the 6to4 prefix in
   the policy table to the same precedence as carried by the Teredo
   prefix defined in [RFC4380].  Leaving this entry in the default table
   will cause no problems and will help if any deployments still exist,
   and ensure 6to4 prefixes are differentiated from general GUAs.

   The discussion regarding the adding of 6to4 site prefixes in section
   10.7 of [RFC6724] remains valid.

2.  Terminology

   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
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   GUA: Global Unicast Addresses as defined in [RFC3587]

   ULA: Unique Local Addresses as defined in [RFC4193]

   Known-local ULA: A ULA prefix that a node has determined to be local
   to a given node, network, or administrative domain

   RA: IPv6 Router Advertisement as defined in [RFC4861]

   PIO: IPv6 Prefix Information Option as defined in [RFC4861]

   SLAAC: IPv6 Stateless Address Auto-configuration [RFC4862]

3.  Adjustments to RFC 6724

   This document makes three specific changes to RFC6724: first to
   update the default policy table, second to change Rule 5.5, which
   adjusts precedence of addresses in a prefix advertised by the next-
   hop, to a requirement, and third to require nodes to insert observed
   known-local ULA prefixes into their policy table.






Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


3.1.  Policy Table Update

   This update alters the default policy table listed in Rule 2.1 of RFC
   6724.

   It should be noted the order of rows in the policy table is of no
   consequence and only the precedence value is relevant.

   The table below reflects the updated precedence table:

Prefix        Precedence Label
::1/128               50     0
$known_local/4x       45    14 (**)
::/0                  40     1
fc00::/7              30    13 (*)
::ffff:0:0/96         20     4 (*)
2002::/16              5     2 (*)
2001::/32              5     5
::/96                  1     3
fec0::/10              1    11
3ffe::/16              1    12

(*) value(s) changed in update
(**) $known_local = the ULA Known-Local IPv6 prefix(es), with lengths between /40 and /48 (if any)
with precedence and labels per the rules in Sec 5.3

   The update moves 2002::/16 to de-preference its status in line with
   [RFC7526] and moves the precedence of fc00::/7 above legacy IPv4,
   with ::ffff:0:0/96 now set to precedence 20.

3.2.  Rule 5.5

   The text in RFC6724 states that the Rules MUST be followed in order,
   but also includes a discussion note under Rule 5.5 that says that an
   IPv6 implementation is not required to remember which next-hops
   advertised which prefixes and thus that Rule 5.5 is only applicable
   to implementations that track this information.

   This document removes that exception and elevates the requirement to
   prefer addresses in a prefix advertised by a next-hop router to a
   requirement for all nodes.

   This change means that an IPv6 implementation will need to remember
   which next-hops advertised which prefixes [RFC8028], despite the
   conceptual models of IPv6 hosts in Section 5 of [RFC4861] and
   Section 3 of [RFC4191] having no such requirement.





Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


3.3.  Automatic insertion of known-local ULA prefixes into the policy
      table

   Section 2.1 of [RFC6724] states that "an implementation MAY
   automatically add additional site-specific rows to the default table
   based on its configured addresses, such as for Unique Local Addresses
   (ULAs)", but it provides no detail on how such behavior might be
   implemented.

   If a node can determine which ULA prefix(es) are known to be local,
   it can provide differential treatment for those over general, non-
   known-local ULAs, and insert these into the policy table at a higher
   precedence than GUAs while keeping all general ULA prefixes to a
   lower precedence.

   This document thus elevates the MAY requirement above for insertion
   to a MUST for the specific case of known-local ULAs.

   These known-local ULA prefixes are inferred from ULA addresses
   assigned to interfaces or learned from Prefix Information Options
   (PIOs) in Router Advertisements (RAs) [RFC4861] received, regardless
   of how the PIO flags are set.  Further, they are learned from Route
   Information Options (RIOs) in RAs received by Type C hosts that
   process RIOs, as defined in [RFC4191].

   Section 3.1 of [RFC4193] only defines ULA prefixes where the L-bit is
   set to 1, i.e., prefixes under fd00::/8 where the prefix is locally
   assigned or generated.

   The following rules define how the learnt known-local ULA prefixes
   under fd00::/8 are inserted into the address selection policy table
   for a node, through a conceptual list of known-local prefixes.

   1.  Any RIO or PIO that is delivered in an RA in which the "SNAC
       Router" RA header flag bit [SNACBIT] is set MUST be ignored when
       considering the following rules.

   2.  RIOs from within fd00::/8 are considered the preferred
       information source for determining known-local ULAs and should
       override other conflicting information or assumptions from other
       sources, including PIOs.

   3.  RIOs within fd00::/8 that are of length /40 or longer MUST be
       added to the known-local ULA list.  RIOs for shorter prefixes
       MUST NOT be used to insert known-local ULA entries in the address
       selection policy table





Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   4.  PIOs received within fd00::/8 that are not already in the nodes
       known-local ULA list MUST be added to the list with an assumed
       prefix length of /48, regardless of how the PIO flags are set.

   5.  ULA interface addresses from within fd00::/8, particularly ones
       not created by SLAAC, and not already covered by the known-local
       ULA list MUST be added to the list with an assumed prefix length
       of /48.  However, as with rule 1, if the ULA interface address
       was generated on the basis of a PIO that has only been seen in
       RAs in which the SNAC router flag bit is set, this ULA prefix
       MUST NOT be used as described in this rule (rule 5).  This
       prevents potential use of a non-routable source address when
       communicating to a known-local ULA destination address that is
       not on the local link, as SNAC-generated ULAs can only work on a
       single link, and the only reason to ever choose them in source
       address selection is that the only choice for a destination
       address is the longest prefix match.

   6.  When inserting known-local ULA entries into the policy table,
       they MUST have a label of 14 (rather than the default ULA label
       of 13) and a precedence of 45.

   7.  Entries MUST be removed from the known-local ULA list and the
       Policy Table when the announced RIOs or PIOs become invalid, or
       an interface address is removed, and there is no covering RIO or
       PIO.

   When support is added for the insertion of known-local ULA prefixes
   into the current policy table it MUST default to on, but a mechanism
   SHOULD be supported to administratively toggle the behavior off and
   on.

   Mechanisms and techniques used to display a node's current policy
   table MUST show all currently inserted known-local ULA prefixes.

   The identification and insertion of known-local prefixes under
   fc00::/8 is currently not defined.

   Note that a practical limit exists on the number of RIOs and PIOs
   that can be placed into a single RA.  Therefore, there is a practical
   limit to the number of known-local ULAs that can be expressed on a
   single network and the number of ULA prefixes that can automatically
   be preferred over IPv4 and GUA prefixes within the policy table.
   This limit is unlikely to impact most networks, especially
   residential and other small unmanaged networks that automatically
   generate ULA prefixes.





Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   Section 4 of [RFC4191] says "Routers SHOULD NOT send more than 17
   Route Information Options in Router Advertisements per link.  This
   arbitrary bound is meant to reinforce that relatively few and
   carefully selected routes should be advertised to hosts."  The exact
   limit will depend on other options that are used.  So while this is
   not the practical limit discussed above, administrators should take
   extra care not to cause the RA size to exceed the MTU when filling
   the RA with RA Options when exceeding this limit.

   Note that in the case of Rule 3 above it would be expected that ULA
   prefixes being included in the known-local prefix list be compliant
   with Section 3 of [RFC4193] (i.e., /48 in size) but the above rule is
   pragmatic in that it allows the use of ULA prefixes from /48 to /40
   in length.  Most networks use ("are expected to use") /48 prefixes as
   per RFC4193.  However, it is possible that in some circumstances a
   larger managed enterprise may wish to use a shorter prefix (e.g., to
   simplify management, filtering rules, etc, and to overcome the issue
   with the number of RIOs an RA can carry as described in the above
   paragraph).  However, such non-compliant use of ULAs may be
   problematic in other ways, e.g., carrying an increased risk of
   collision with other ULA prefixes, because shorter prefixes have a
   lower chance to be globally unique.

4.  Configuration of the default policy table

   As stated in Section 2.1 of [RFC6724] "IPv6 implementations SHOULD
   support configurable address selection via a mechanism at least as
   powerful as the policy tables defined here".

   Based on operational experience to date, it is important that node
   policy tables can be changed once deployed to support future emerging
   use cases.  This update thus re-states the importance of such
   configurability.

5.  Intended behavior

   In this section we review the intended default behavior after this
   update is applied.

5.1.  GUA-GUA preferred over IPv4-IPv4

   This is the current behavior, and remains unaltered.  The rationale
   is to promote use of IPv6 GUAs in dual-stack environments.

5.2.  GUA-GUA preferred over ULA-ULA

   This is the current behavior, and remains unaltered for the general
   case.



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   However, where a ULA prefix is determined to be local, and added as a
   known-local ULA prefix to a node's address selection policy table,
   communications to addresses in other known-local ULA prefixes will
   prefer ULA-ULA address pairs to GUA-GUA (matching label, higher
   precedence).

5.3.  Known-local ULA - Known-local ULA preferred over GUA-GUA

   As described in the previous case, this document elevates precedence
   for use of ULAs over GUAs in cases where the ULA prefix(es) in use
   can be determined to be local to a site or organization.

   By only adapting this behavior for known-local ULAs, a node will not
   select a ULA source to talk to a non-local ULA destination and will
   instead correctly use GUA-GUA.

   Nodes not yet implementing this RFC will continue to use GUA-GUA over
   ULA-ULA for all cases.

   As an example, consider a site that uses prefixes ULA1::/48,
   ULA2::/48 and GUA1::/48.

   Host A has address ULA1::1 and GUA1:1::1 Host B has address ULA2::1
   and GUA1:2::1

   Both ULA prefixes have been determined to be known-local through
   RIOs.  Perhaps ULA2 is reachable within the site, but its prefix is
   not in direct use at host A.

   If host A sends to host B the candidate pairs are ULA1::1 - ULA2::1
   and GUA1:1::1 - GUA1:2::1.

   In this case ULA1::1 - ULA2::1 wins because of matching labels (both
   14) and higher precedence than GUA (45 vs 40).

   If host A were to send to a host C with addresses ULA3::1 (where
   ULA3::/48 has not been learned to be a known-local prefix) and
   GUA2:1::1, host A would use the GUA address pair for the
   communication as the GUAs have matching labels (both 1) where the
   known-local ULA and general ULA do not (14 and 13 respectively).

5.4.  Known-local ULA-known-local ULA preferred over IPv4-IPv4

   This update changes previous behavior for this case.  RFC6724 as
   originally defined would lead to IPv4 being preferred over ULAs,
   which is contrary to the spirit of the IPv6 GUA precedence over IPv4,
   and to the goal of removing evidenced use of IPv4 in a dual-stack
   site before transitioning to IPv6-only.



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   This document elevates the precedence of known-local ULAs above IPv4,
   so known-local ULA-ULA address pairs will be chosen over IPv4-IPv4
   pairs (matching label, higher precedence).

5.5.  IPv4-IPv4 preferred over ULA-GUA

   An IPv6 ULA source address will only be preferred over an IPv4
   address if both IPv6 ULA source and destination addresses are
   available.  With Rule 5 of Section 6 of [RFC6724] and the ULA-
   specific label added in [RFC6724] (which was not present in
   [RFC3484]) an IPv4 source and destination will be preferred over an
   IPv6 ULA source and an IPv6 GUA destination address, even though
   generally known-local IPv6 ULA addresses are preferred over IPv4 in
   the policy table as proposed in this update.  The IPv4 matching label
   trumps ULA-GUA.

6.  Discussion of ULA source with GUA or remote ULA destination

   In this section we present a discussion on the scenarios where a ULA
   source may be communicating with a GUA or ULA destination.

   A potential problem exists when a ULA source attempts to communicate
   with GUA or remote ULA destinations.  In these scenarios, the ULA
   source as stated earlier is by default intended for communication
   only with the local network, meaning an individual site, several
   sites that are part of the same organization, or multiple sites
   across cooperating organizations, as detailed in [RFC4193].  As a
   result, most GUA and ULA destinations are not attached to the same
   local network as the ULA source and are, therefore, not reachable
   from the ULA source.

   Scenario 1: ULA source and GUA destination

   When only a ULA source is available for communication with GUA
   destinations, this generally implies no connectivity to the IPv6
   Internet is available.  Otherwise, a GUA source would have been made
   available and selected for use with GUA destinations.  As a result,
   the ULA source will typically fail when it attempts to communicate
   with most GUA destinations.  However, corner cases exist where the
   ULA source will not fail, such as when GUA destinations are attached
   to the same local network as the ULA source.

   Scenario 2: ULA source and remote ULA destination

   Receiving a DNS response for a ULA destination that is not attached
   to the local network is considered a misconfiguration.  This
   contradicts the operational guidelines provided in Section 4.4 of
   [RFC4193].  Nevertheless, this can occur, and the ULA source will



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   typically fail when it attempts to communicate with ULA destinations
   that are not attached to the same local network as the ULA source.
   This case provides a rationale for implementing support for known-
   local ULA prefix insertion in the policy table, such that
   differential behavior can be applied for known-local versus general
   ULA prefixes.

   The remainder of this section discusses several complementary
   mechanisms involved with these scenarios.

6.1.  The ULA Label and its Precedence

   [RFC6724] added (in obsoleting [RFC3484]) a separate label for ULAs
   (the whole range, under fc00::/7), whose default precedence is raised
   by this update.  This separate label interacts with Rule 5 of
   Section 6 of [RFC6724], which says:

   Rule 5: Prefer matching label.

   If Label(Source(DA)) = Label(DA) and Label(Source(DB)) <> Label(DB),
   then prefer DA.

   Similarly, if Label(Source(DA)) <> Label(DA) and Label(Source(DB)) =
   Label(DB), then prefer DB.

   In the first scenario, the ULA source label, whether known-local or
   not, will not match the GUA destination label.  Therefore, an IPv4
   destination, if available, will be preferred over a GUA destination
   with a ULA source, even though the GUA destination has higher
   precedence than the IPv4 destination in the policy table.  This means
   the IPv4 destination will be moved up in the list of destinations
   over the GUA destination with the ULA source.

   If the ULA (fc00::/7) label is removed from the policy table, a GUA
   destination with a ULA source will be preferred over an IPv4
   destination, as GUA and ULA will be part of the same label (for
   ::/0).

   In the second scenario, if the ULA source has been recognized as
   being within a known-local prefix that has been inserted into the
   address selection policy table, then the known-local ULA source and
   general ULA destination will have different labels, and therefore
   IPv4 communication will be preferred.








Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   If the ULA source has not been recognized as known-local, e.g., if
   the insertion of known-local prefixes into the policy table has been
   administratively disabled, its general ULA label will match the
   general ULA destination label and therefore, whether part of the
   local network or not, the ULA destination will be preferred over an
   IPv4 destination.

6.2.  Happy Eyeballs

   Regardless of the precedence resulting from the above discussion,
   Happy Eyeballs version 1 [RFC6555] or version 2 [RFC8305], if
   implemented, will try both the GUA or ULA destination with the ULA
   source and the IPv4 destination and source pairings.  The ULA source
   will typically fail to communicate with most GUA or remote ULA
   destinations, and IPv4 will be preferred if IPv4 connectivity is
   available unless the GUA or ULA destinations are attached to the same
   local network as the ULA source.

6.3.  Try the Next Address

   As stated in Section 2 of [RFC6724]:

   "Well-behaved applications SHOULD NOT simply use the first address
   returned from an API such as getaddrinfo() and then give up if it
   fails.  For many applications, it is appropriate to iterate through
   the list of addresses returned from getaddrinfo() until a working
   address is found.  For other applications, it might be appropriate to
   try multiple addresses in parallel (e.g., with some small delay in
   between) and use the first one to succeed."

   Therefore, when an IPv4 destination is preferred over GUA or ULA
   destinations, IPv4 will likely succeed if IPv4 connectivity is
   available, and the GUA or ULA destination may only be tried if Happy
   Eyeballs is implemented.

   On the other hand, if the GUA or ULA destination with the ULA source
   is preferred, the ULA source will typically fail to communicate with
   GUA or ULA destinations that are not connected to the same local
   network.  However, if the operational guidelines in Section 4.3 of
   [RFC4193] are followed, recognizing this failure can be accelerated,
   and transport layer timeouts (e.g., TCP hard errors as described in
   section 2.1 [RFC5461]) can be avoided.  The guidelines will cause a
   Destination Unreachable ICMPv6 Error to be received by the source
   device, signaling the next address in the list to be tried, as
   discussed above.






Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


7.  Following ULA operational guidelines in RFC4193

   This section re-emphasizes two important operational requirements
   stated in [RFC4193] that should be followed by administrators.

7.1.  Filtering ULA-source addresses at site borders

   Section 4.3 of [RFC4193] states "Site border routers and firewalls
   should be configured to not forward any packets with Local IPv6
   source or destination addresses outside the site, unless they have
   been explicitly configured with routing information about specific
   /48 or longer Local IPv6 prefixes".

   And further that "Site border routers should respond with the
   appropriate ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to inform the
   source that the packet was not forwarded".

   As stated in the above discussion, such ICMPv6 messages can assist in
   fast failover for TCP connections.

7.2.  Avoid using ULA addresses in the global DNS

   Section 4.4 of [RFC4193] states that "AAAA and PTR records for
   locally assigned local IPv6 addresses are not recommended to be
   installed in the global DNS."

   This is particularly important given the general method presented in
   this document elevates the priority for ULAs above IPv4.  However,
   where support for insertion of known-local prefixes is implemented,
   such "rogue" ULAs in the global DNS are a less serious concern for
   address selection as they would have the lowest precedence.

8.  The practicalities of implementing address selection support

   As with most adjustments to standards, and using the introduction of
   RFC6724 as a measuring stick, the updates defined in this document
   will likely take several years to become common enough for consistent
   behavior within most operating systems.  At the time of writing, it
   has been over 10 years since RFC6724 has been published but we
   continue to see existing commercial and open source operating systems
   exhibiting RFC3484 (or other) behavior.

   While it should be noted that RFC6724 defines a solution to adjust
   the address precedence selection table that is functional
   theoretically, operationally the solution is operating system
   dependent and in practice policy table changes cannot be signaled by
   any currently deployed network mechanism.  While [RFC7078] defines
   such a DHCPv6 option, there are few if any implementations.  This



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   lack of an intra-protocol or network-based ability to adjust address
   selection precedence, along with the inability to adjust a notable
   number of operating systems either programmatically or manually,
   renders operational scalability of such a mechanism challenging.

   It is especially important to note this behavior in the long
   lifecycle equipment that exists in industrial control and operational
   technology environments due to their very long mean time to
   replacement/lifecycle.

9.  Limitations of RFC6724

   The procedures defined in RFC6724 do not give optimal results for all
   scenarios.  As stated in the introduction, the aim of this update is
   to improve the behavior for the most common scenarios.

   Operational experienced has demonstrated that 3484/6724/getaddrinfo()
   model is fundamentally limited with regard to optimal address
   selection.  A model that considers address pairs directly, rather
   than sorting on destination addresses with the best source for that
   address, would be preferable, but beyond the scope of this document.

   To simplify address selection, administrators may instead look to
   deploy IPv6-only and/or may choose to only use GUA addresses and no
   ULA addresses.  Other approaches to reduce the use of IPv4, e.g.,
   through use of DHCPv4 Option 108 as defined in [RFC8925] as part of
   an "IPv6 Mostly" deployment model, also help simplify address
   selection for nodes.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable input and
   contributions of the 6man WG including (in alphabetic order) Erik
   Auerswald, Dale Carder, Brian Carpenter, Tom Coffeen, Lorenzo
   Colitti, Chris Cummings, David Farmer (in particular for the ULA to
   GUA/ULA discussion text, and discussion of using the specific
   fd00::/8 prefix for known-locals), Bob Hinden, Scott Hogg, Ed Horley,
   Ted Lemon, Jen Linkova, Michael Richardson, Kyle Rose, Nathan
   Sherrard, Ole Troan, Eduard Vasilenko, Eric Vyncke, Paul Wefel,
   Timothy Winters, and XiPeng Xiao.

11.  Implementation Status

   This section should be removed before publication as an RFC.

   There are two known implementations of the ULA known-local precedence
   mechanism.  The first implementation was created by Lorenzo Colitti
   at Google as a prototype solution, with public code available for



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   reference on their android platform available to the public
   [ANDROID].  It was last updated in April of 2024, and does not
   include the capability to listen for RIO/PIO changes, but does
   support adding the ULA prefix learned on the interface to the known-
   local precedence.

   The second implementation was written by Jeremy Duncan at Tachyon
   Dynamics and made available as open source, reference prototype code
   available [RAIO-ULA-PY].  This implementation includes a full
   implementation written in python, including the capability to listen
   to RIO and PIO on the wire and adjust ULA known-local prefixes as
   needed.  It was last updated in May of 2024.

12.  Security Considerations

   The mixed precedence for IPv6 over IPv4 from the default policy table
   in RF 6724 represents a potential security issue, given an operator
   may expect ULAs to be used when in practice RFC1918 addresses are
   used instead.

   The requirements of RFC4193, stated earlier in this document, should
   be followed for optimal behavior.

   Administrators should be mindful of cases where communicating nodes
   have differing behavior for address selection, e.g., RFC3484
   behavior, RFC6724, the updated RFC6724 behavior defined here, some
   other non-IETF-standardized behavior, or even no mechanism.  There
   may thus be inconsistent behavior for communications initiated in
   each direction between two nodes.  Ultimately all nodes should be
   made compliant to the updated specification described in this
   document.

13.  IANA Considerations

   None.

14.  Appendix

   The table below reflects the [RFC6724] table












Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


                       RFC6724
   Prefix       Precedence Label
   ::1/128              50     0
   ::/0                 40     1
   ::ffff:0:0/96        35     4
   2002::/16            30     2
   2001::/32             5     5
   fc00::/7              3    13
   ::/96                 1     3
   fec0::/10             1    11
   3ffe::/16             1    12

15.  Summary of changes and additional text since RFC6724

   *  Introduced concept of known-locals and rules for their insertion/
      removal in the table.

   *  Changed default policy table to move fc00::/7 to precedence 30,
      above legacy IPv4.

   *  Changed default policy table to move the 6to4 address block
      2002::/16 to the same precedence as the Teredo prefix.

   *  Changed ::ffff:0:0/96 to precedence 20.

   *  Changed Rule 5.5 to a MUST support.

   *  Added text clarifying intended behavior.

   *  Added text discussing ULA to GUA/ULA case.

   *  Added text for the security section.

   *  Added text to account for SNAC bit.

16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.

   [RFC8028]  Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
              Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
              November 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

   [RFC7526]  Troan, O. and B. Carpenter, Ed., "Deprecating the Anycast
              Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", BCP 196, RFC 7526,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7526, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7526>.

   [SNACBIT]  "SNAC Router Flag in ICMPv6 Router Advertisement
              Messages", n.d., <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
              ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag/>.

   [ANDROID]  "Optionally prefer known-local ULAs in Android", n.d.,
              <https://r.android.com/3046000>.

   [RAIO-ULA-PY]
              "Python known-local ULA implementation", n.d.,
              <https://github.com/jeremy-duncan/raio_ula>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

16.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
              J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
              Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
              February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   [RFC8305]  Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.

   [RFC3587]  Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
              Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, DOI 10.17487/RFC3587,
              August 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3587>.

   [RFC8925]  Colitti, L., Linkova, J., Richardson, M., and T.
              Mrugalski, "IPv6-Only Preferred Option for DHCPv4",
              RFC 8925, DOI 10.17487/RFC8925, October 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8925>.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3484, February 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
              Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
              RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4380, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4380>.

   [RFC5461]  Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.

   [RFC7078]  Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and T. Chown, "Distributing
              Address Selection Policy Using DHCPv6", RFC 7078,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7078, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7078>.

Authors' Addresses

   Nick Buraglio
   Energy Sciences Network
   Email: buraglio@forwardingplane.net



Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft  Prioritizing known-local ULA in RFC 6724     August 2025


   Tim Chown
   Jisc
   Email: Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk


   Jeremy Duncan
   Tachyon Dynamics
   Email: jduncan@tachyondynamics.com











































Buraglio, et al.        Expires 12 February 2026               [Page 21]
