Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:44:50 -0800

On 1/21/2021 5:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 2:56 PM Brian E Carpenter 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Putting two things together:
>     On 22-Jan-21 07:57, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>     ...
>     > A ULA->Public key registry provides exactly the right degree of
>     incentive. It allows us to take an area that is currently flaky as
>     heck and make it 'just work'. That area is VPN access.
>
>     Yes, but afaik you (or I) can't claim ownership of random numbers.
>     So if my ULA prefix is fd63:45eb:dc14::/48 and I provide a public
>     key for it, what's to stop you using the same prefix and providing
>     your own public key for it?
>
>
> The registry undertakes to only issue each prefix once and bind it to 
> a public key specified by the holder.
>
> The registry publishes the allocation in an append only log which is 
> attested by a blockchain type technique. So there is (almost) no scope 
> for the registry to defect.

How do you protect the registry against a Sybil attack?

-- Christian Huitema