Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 2:56 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> 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.




> On 22-Jan-21 01:20, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> > Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >     >> 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?
> >
> > It's not.
>
> If ULA usage is validated by a public key, that might appear to support
> audit and accountability, but only if there's a third-party guarantee of
> uniqueness. I think Michael has an important point here. A self-assigned
> ULA prefix has no more legal significance than a Net 10 address.
>

Haber and Stornetta's hash chain notary concept, now known as blockchain
allow the degree of trust in the third party to be very very small.