RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 08 November 2021 09:07 UTC
Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 8BEB83A0CDA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:07:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 T674hhfu_GZT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:07:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A34C3A0CFA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 01:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HnlTx2Kk7z6802V; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:01:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:06:24 +0100
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.15; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:06:24 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) by mscpeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.142]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.015; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:06:24 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Thread-Topic: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Thread-Index: AQHX0CVovVGa7jvYXUCxunxuZ8u5Aqvxc5hQgAHV/ACAAA76AIAA47oAgABGPgCAAALTgIAAQqCggACa3wyAAoWkEIAAf80AgAD1HIA=
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 09:06:24 +0000
Message-ID: <9bf8be8ece7a470dba95433042f27f73@huawei.com>
References: <8F4B97EA-665F-4A59-B99D-791B4AB9F2F7@yahoo.co.uk> <885e62bf-7d6a-4501-a48a-e7c2cbf20382@joelhalpern.com> <e59adb61-a55c-7f5f-a60a-40bf186c139d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAC8QAceMSrfkqGTYcMNr3JargO3gxJqTaEyf02LGHd-KVeUDHw@mail.gmail.com> <6286da3e-2beb-9556-089a-2e1951573b1e@gmail.com> <59c80b60-438f-b10f-ad61-ba839f6e4f95@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <e834916e85ea47ef94fce07c23928d2b@huawei.com> <37b299c8-e821-07e5-6240-68fb9d1ca137@gmail.com> <23b450fb11eb4a51bb4ee837b5c52657@huawei.com> <a805b50d-3ccd-dd2a-4931-6c6dc9a8ede3@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAC8QAceY1gtK5v3WGMd4OB0z826jDiDDw_g1LbjWef7MKTnrcg@mail.gmail.com> <7d6af5bc-9663-7e4e-26ba-23fb1e4dccbe@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7238184A-53D6-42C3-B9C3-E333513A8636@sobco.com> <513d8f63-78c6-50ca-9d11-ee128af0d202@foobar.org> <f6ecd8af8e0040869e152b086e041a42@huawei.com> <E285424F-7E21-47BF-8235-BF9710F1593C@gmail.com> <23408009-7933-d1ed-6347-13092ee3abc9@gmail.com> <a9d6ed638692428aa5b67f16f961a1cc@huawei.com> <27da82b5-6bb5-30e3-a4b1-f119fa3afc32@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <27da82b5-6bb5-30e3-a4b1-f119fa3afc32@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.197.193]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QTYaxcJlgFECBCWTxtvgMc3P3Ew>
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 09:07:39 -0000
RFC7136 section 5: "In all cases, the bits in an IID have no generic semantics; in other words, they have opaque values." Sorry, It is not an Architecture, if half of the bits of IPv6 address is left for "whatever you want". Effectively, the second half of the IPv6 address is metadata that is mandatory to process by all intermediate nodes even if it is not used because it is a part of the basic header. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:22 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context] On 08-Nov-21 00:00, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: > If it is the best practice to disable "temporary addresses" (because > it is fake privacy anyway) I didn't say it was best practice. I expect it to be a common practice in enterprise networks, but the reason it's the recommended default for operating systems is so that individuals will benefit from the small amount of privacy it offers. > Then what is the purpose of waisting (2^64-1)/2^64 of IPv6 addresses space? We've debated this so often; I can only suggest reading RFC7136 and RFC7421 again, and the whole debate around the abandoned draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis. There is no consensus in the IETF for changing the /64 boundary. > The next reason could be to greatly simplify Address Resolution Protocol (some link parameters still make sense to broadcast). > > Or else, we have to accept that half of the address bits are just the garbage that every node needs to store and process. > Except for a few bits that are needed on many subnets anyway to organize local connectivity. > > About ARP storm: > ND has much bigger DoS capabilities because ARP storms were not DOS attacks; they were bugs built into combining certain IPv4 implementations with spanning tree bridges. > - 2^64 subnet permits to push the router to find all 2^64 addresses, > it could be done even from outside of the subnet > - temporarily addresses 10x increase the load on the protocol and the > same on the log and correlation engine (for LI, forensic, and troubleshooting) It is famous how WiFi degrades on any physical IETFevent because of the huge number of multicasts per second. Sure. Building a single /64 that big is a very debatable design choice. The principle fix for ARP storms (and other forms of broadcast storms in IPv4) was subnetting. The same should apply to IPv6 network design. > All of these multicasts would not be needed if MAC would be inside every IPv6 address as it was intended initially. > It is the best use for these 64bits. It's said that to make any Internet problem harder, just say "multicast". And it's true. But the real culprit here isn't "multicast", it's "scaling". Subnetting is the right answer and there is no shortage of /64s in the universe. Brian > > Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 11:13 PM > To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; Vasilenko Eduard > <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> > Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context] > > On 06-Nov-21 01:09, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> >> >>> On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:10, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com <mailto:vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>> wrote: >>> >>> What is important: Enterprises have no clear sign of IPv6 adoption. >>> ND protocol has a heavy influence on this. >>> Of course, ND is not the only reason. But maybe the biggest one. >> >> Indeed, and I have had a consistent complaint from a British security conscious large private sector technology savvy company, that IPv6 is so much harder to secure than IPv4 they have no interest in moving. I think that part of this is the conflict between the privacy that IPv6 offers and their need to know that *every* packet on their network is entitled to be there doing what it is doing. > > > You can administratively disable "privacy" (temporary) addresses, but most sites find it safer to perform access control based on MAC addresses. Temporary addresses are intended to confuse the outside world, not the local network operator. They are *intended* to make lawful intercept harder. That's a feature, not a bug. I agree that they also make debugging harder, which may be another reason to disable them. > > Complaining about ND seems odd if sites tolerate ARP. Anybody else remember ARP storms? ND was designed to avoid that risk. > > All these are FUD arguments used in support of operational inertia. > > Brian >
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Lloyd W
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… Bron Gondwana
- RE: [Gendispatch] Last Call: <draft-eggert-bcp45b… STARK, BARBARA H
- Describing which behavior is appropriate or not (… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Sander Steffann
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Lloyd W
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Miles Fidelman
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stephen Farrell
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context David Farmer
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Andrew Campling
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Jay Daley
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Stephen Farrell
- RE: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Joel M. Halpern
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stewart Bryant
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Keith Moore
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Stewart Bryant
- It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF contex… Carsten Bormann
- Relitigating history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Scott Bradner
- Re: It's a trap (Re: "professional" in an IETF co… Lloyd W
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Miles Fidelman
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Masataka Ohta
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Vasilenko Eduard
- interface ID (was Re: "professional" in an IETF c… Masataka Ohta
- Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF c… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… tom petch
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Ancient history (was Accurate history was [Re… Eliot Lear
- Re: Ancient history (was Accurate history was [Re… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ancient history (was Accurate … Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: "professional" in an IETF context Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: "professional" in an IETF context Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… tom petch
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Greg Shepherd
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Bron Gondwana
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Scott Bradner
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… otroan
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Nick Hilliard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Stewart Bryant
- Why IPv6 failed [Re: Accurate history [Re: "profe… otroan
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… S Moonesamy
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Geoff Huston
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Erik Kline
- RE: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IE… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Keith Moore
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Describing which behavior is appropriate or n… ned+ietf