Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 21 January 2021 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243B13A16DF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:54:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.36 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NSbNvJWApbNO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CD13A16D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id 15so427766pgx.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:54:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kTLugN4573NzXKYQM8yfcJlwTaX4hIiMTPyH6MmWuoQ=; b=JErTQ8Yw6G7k5aaRnY+dMgBe8VFTWcFyhIZunESQl2HRMTPmF3IkxyMsqOX5+7OYUh FfsfjNE33D8h1HgGfqacMApvZX5erZGBhPwMzmZJMJdGv5jGrk9C+DOxrYkcThucq5np qMxUCvFBa/cPNMBBj3LevvHZWshrjey37UH/Dn4fDAgNER6IFDh8mozSiw6/GyuIzY3B GfHupXyoEylnvhXrstitKw9ob8hmvx8BrXcnYrQzhWQxP26hiH5CQKakwtuMqNsF/fvQ NthBaymIh2E09SPi5arihWN9iMUyLFqRxh6BNye+rtBLQQK4GpZ6PdglOal3EZ3132dK zSAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kTLugN4573NzXKYQM8yfcJlwTaX4hIiMTPyH6MmWuoQ=; b=Yc6vqQ6L60Ok/DZiBc517J9bd6rr/xgmziItCi7eaMB2gAVYDXO12pDp1yT3eK4f2N RJ4wGb1R9SG7C/gR3LWiecaQrmsaUjrfojLDF/gY9XZj0ZWnIJaKaQ9gvvFZNoJiB0We RmQs9dJiM08j0SeP48JkNtej8PtYaVAbHrw3Pca7lSYY/PxhlzMmEBM1KfSVYfofCVrA 1rk7vncaJGf0EV9wdVoHgSW31JilOStypAur+nK/NGhGHOS5+zM63H26CkVT7XQ5FCwF uFHTKeDbzspGoEIAqMgn9WlpGWMesWspINhn9PCRA80j9WTOrcbLCjN7+6sDAqiBvWIm 6UDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nU0eix+hs7O/yx6rvTf19e9aGArDgWw80kwfOhFd8NA8Kiesg ZIucvUZ+dCkIVnv0yl72p0VHOiqlEF24Zg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIt66yT+4PdDjiws8wGFaTcMK1mMxes4zb7Z2ZjHQ/+E5EUK7C19rrjdRdEGiNRvErETSBSA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:458e:: with SMTP id o14mr12272816pgq.444.1611197656456; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k25sm3589097pfi.10.2021.01.20.18.54.14 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20210120211046.074FE6BC171B@ary.qy> <6794f7c4-7a37-7676-c245-d33a84384280@si6networks.com> <d4b56f13-b387-8663-81b3-38544ce9dcb2@taugh.com> <CAL9jLaaaOLtRDnEzffk5+rW9bJmcU+4p8hX+FRKMLzpRKaCDfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn13Hvm=7VqKNnKO+55bz3Hs2n54uyzi19TCo4v8GS=LuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1f92e25-67b3-a7b2-efcd-bee666630f49@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:54:12 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn13Hvm=7VqKNnKO+55bz3Hs2n54uyzi19TCo4v8GS=LuA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DiEZ2K4hxchktdGPNJGP6V-mL_g>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:54:19 -0000

On 21-Jan-21 14:41, George Michaelson wrote:
> MAC addresses are on a shared medium.
> 
> ULA are disjoint. The risk is that 1 in 220 networks in a field of
> 100,000 things pick the same value of NON ROUTABLE

The probability of a collision among 100,000 ULAs is 4.54*10^-03, according
to RFC4193. So most likely there is no collision at all, but let's
continue...
 
> and then.. decide to join. Now, tell me the risk of 1 in 220 things,
> both picking the same ULA, *AND* seeking to join their private
> networks.

It's unknowable, because there is no calculus for how likely network A is
to interconnect with network Q, where A and Q are arbitrary choices.
What is knowable, and is worked out for you in RFC4193, is that the
probability of A and Q both having picked the same pseudo-random 40 bits
is 1.81*10^-12.

Of course, if we assume that 10 billion sites around the world each pick
a pseudo-random 40 bit number, the probability that collisions exist is
effectively 1. But that doesn't matter; for any two sites that happen to
interconnect, the probability remains at 1.81*10^-12. Even for a set of
10 sites that happen to interconnect, the probability of collision is
only 4.54*10^-11.

Somewhere above 1000 sites, the probability of a collision gets as high
as one per million. So if you run a very large corporate network, assign a
separate ULA /48 prefix to each site, and merge two sites, you are looking
at a 1 per million chance of a problem, unless you make a trivial check
before doing the merge. (However, why a corporate network would do that
is a mystery. They could simply use one ULA /48 for the whole network.)

I have never lost any sleep over this issue, which has been well understood
and documented for 15 years.

    Brian
 
> -G
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:39 AM Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (I'm not a ULA fan, it's going to cause problems.. but)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 7:16 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. Collissions are actually almost guaranteed (birthday paradox).
>>>
>>> When I do the birthday paradox calculation, I find that the chances that
>>> 100,000 random numbers each 40 bits long are all different is about 95%.
>>> I'll take those odds.
>>>
>>
>> Warren made this website/application/etc:
>>   http://mac-collision-probability.appspot.com/calculate
>>
>> which was used for privacy address problems/discussions, but... if you
>> make it 40 bits and 100,000 stations
>> apparently you'll get a collision 1 out of 220 times. I think that
>> means that ULA network selections COULD overlap at about the same
>> rate.
>>
>> There are ~1.4m small businesses in the US, if they all chose ULA
>> that's more than a few collisions.
>> Collisions matter because when 2 networks that collide come together
>> it's messy :( to untangle and decide whom is going to do what :(
>> it's also not always obvious that it's happening :( until something crashes :(
>>> Regards,
>>> John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>>>
>>
> 
>