IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [arch-d] Treating "private" address ranges specially

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 01 April 2021 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423E33A3C94 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.071
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.071 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HAS_X_OUTGOING_SPAM_STAT=2.388, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1XCEDypA8xA for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0CBC3A2985 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0+VDalB2wep+5X6FK9XeTxk7wMqJG50qQUARav8wZOM=; b=UZSU9zmli+MMbLfCDKxYatwH0 838d8PwXsUzwzy7z7FJQm7S9Q2v/t2gz05jWEq5NSQ31uhpUkl+ZGxWMlLli+MAZzFBZMU0glpHkl io5GApR7/KopKw2BxpTNLLuaiX45fH9y4hlduz90z0dh8e8aEP9p1ZnDhImf4XL5poInvBlhc7qfx VFCf2XqHseLLJUR1i+xfHVXNbvLdEVDlIAlU7gcHNBUTgORCAq48Y+MC138VnatvhBnDF8o1OW2OK BHUz5IT6nK/DDPtZST/Ythw+C4IqdS7v/Af1gqR8ZT4Lu7w91vMZYAaGdaHkp14SX7UeMuKdm8AJZ id5gnPzpg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:51646 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lRl1K-003o9z-2v; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:17:14 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9EF1A4BF-4098-4D03-B53A-0B52A256801B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <0cfae1b5-378d-1b28-9a60-89ef15cd793a@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:17:09 -0700
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-Id: <1E1FB005-5830-46E0-B8DA-9ADC89A13B1E@strayalpha.com>
References: <4329d51a-d5ba-45b3-9fb0-6795dc6fccd3@www.fastmail.com> <CAMGpriWA4B8AThNKBOHo-bfAdQ2s5iYv8rBOB7X8UVc5GsqENA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriUJkWYPyw7=oAj_GnGu2J14T3=VZYNWPZtAs870P=x0sg@mail.gmail.com> <a68636c2-5df0-46eb-8147-79ec6a992f8a@www.fastmail.com> <CAMGpriU_L8HbLFX_mMBtBXxy=XOc5BAnYgVR9R8TQO=DPvRD_g@mail.gmail.com> <F59E2FC3-19CE-4D14-9F1C-9F7125D89455@mnot.net> <CAMGpriVJCsird15oBfT=gSDTr59_yf9TkLmOSO7a9DGX0VRjOg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMB2iOA-QaCidJHVN=qqZ8TtPXV=xyfuKh+i44VzZLWG3w@mail.gmail.com> <0cfae1b5-378d-1b28-9a60-89ef15cd793a@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/dZSw7HymOs3qt9hSxRXYkodIoL8>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Treating "private" address ranges specially
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:17:20 -0000


> On Mar 31, 2021, at 1:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 31-Mar-21 22:07, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> The document's description of the address space architecture is:
>> 
>> 
>>      2.1. IP Address Space
>> 
>> Every IP address belongs to an IP address space, which can be one of three different values:
>> 
>> 1. local: contains the local host only. In other words, addresses whose target differs for every device.
>> 
>> 2. private: contains addresses that have meaning only within the current network. In other words, addresses whose target differs based on network position.
>> 
>> 3. public: contains all other addresses. In other words, addresses whose target is the same for all devices globally on the IP network.
> 
> The problem is that this classification is worse than heresy; it's nonsense.

How is this different from RFC6890?

> 1) local. That seems trivially true

Again, RFC6890?

...
> 2) private. There is no definition of "private" address in any IETF document.

RFC1918??

> 3) public. Ditto. Globally reachable != public.

AFAICT, those are equivalent terms; there are lots of “not officially private”, “not officially local” addresses that are not globally reachable either (e.g., most things behind NATs).

So at best, this hierarchy isn’t ill defined or lacking RFC authority; it’s just incomplete.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email