IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 21 January 2021 02:57 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 6FDF23A16E2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:57:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.361
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.361 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] 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 u5JbmUPyP-PI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (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 1BFB63A16C8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id s15so457624plr.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:57:23 -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=rB43sb+ERO/JiJ9JeOPjOmkBVEaJnIDEUjB4jb0YVPk=; b=Xe6uaovppTSG0+0gu92e36JDYxRPNkQNMuIQJgLcWV8YOOHC1C9Fxf7lzEByGoncaj 2in4mHkkVGIEsavhuTJ0sNUTN3y76zgoKb5wF26wB//U+Du1nJDP3YIqujfvpbU4f98k WqNZ/tkEo5eO+BsGOZFn4g4RRKlSmOZducbdIVgHpI8Bg2cu0TfN+HjxHvWnGevFxfk0 N6i8jtwyvKSyo5s3WD7Biv34LHNww/o2nKJLD3gHpsmnJGchKmvCa1ezvMoH9kKPd5A4 BCm5N2Bmp2HvQQXHLfqhoJDuK0ZiM/MrJx3me9DU3zlQCuh57egPTRtMQsYRktmjDV2t IrLw==
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=rB43sb+ERO/JiJ9JeOPjOmkBVEaJnIDEUjB4jb0YVPk=; b=b+ws1Wv/gPj3EgQ6+sCzXAiA1iWH+ZUHNFCWwJ5P3fMp76mls9e+gVgdL5vfgFcLAs jkBHzgkgsfgohUCkvOHQCYvk5vxIzE5ypuD9fMNGZFfnUNHwoHpO4DxoK+dkiv5H8IIt cg4CEOW0hCh8DOWtZ1yxplo/z3W2rOCGvig56lFlGWXzOUg/eH/84iTVrw21rbjqyVPJ kNZLpAQcHbMa42gipeezhJjGuzgtw1qYiCVixzquryY2kp4PfDLf/PfIeO/JjeC7jwKx 1GM1Y/Rk0/GngW9ZxIU26etPDFbrHjOjUtE0acaSkbWQy7cjFLPgcgD+DeiwMdFb1paj k+bA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530J4pSB4QpF65t0F0sT0F+3dt/7MydImFQ0C5Mtb3RuLyXhByGZ gR9oyoK7eXufahVD45aLscMtSl/yaKRqvQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5JRXTqa6RRYAvGVTOiYxxV0NR24Yc7WQp1rIXJuVUxQV+8N5eqGD+PzAy85kibUvvPTcJWw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d391:b029:de:b1f7:c196 with SMTP id e17-20020a170902d391b02900deb1f7c196mr12874594pld.9.1611197842113; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 184sm3596912pgi.92.2021.01.20.18.57.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <abdac3dd-f601-1fae-8c9f-fbe393930558@foobar.org> <e9a49b69-b629-356b-c33a-4d49794c3e89@gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh7nQRm=4fLkOKOgQA9L9TS_wh3qSmmV_Ko+N+afDtw+Q@mail.gmail.com> <7f73201d-7f28-92ff-875f-12133e278f94@foobar.org> <CAMm+Lwif4fB_kr7F=hR_nzPhESbqk55E2ZF6o51vC3tDmGCfEw@mail.gmail.com> <13999.1611194919@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1e8e93a3-157f-65c6-8f87-07b381ae8f54@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:57:17 +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: <13999.1611194919@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/K_2W84nTVsdFaOxY-4c2vnPqun0>
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 02:57:24 -0000

Michael,

> While ULAs and privacy enhanced addresses have important uses for individual
> privacy, when it comes to non-moving business/enterprise infrastructure,
> audit and accountability is much more important, and ULA-R does not satisfy
> that.

How is that problem solved today for RFC 1918 addresses?

Regards
   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email