IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Thu, 21 January 2021 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 E55513A0AF7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:41:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 H73pPA6RIqcz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (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 178373A0AE1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:41:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id s15so323143plr.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:41:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1UuVwz42/1zb8pkRzmqtvC8XJeQ4YPZiWNlZdoq4Gzg=; b=xVHE53iNlCIKBzfSmbI9cGmA4wDmSUqnbLGzRbX6QOpHdhQzsx3p5IjqSkxPS5OCwH dnIJOPuLqLYTmsYJYo6hCvlP+c5lE9KbvSAnNSSUFbHdQeCfki3MTw0lleDCUrIgRaMA tf8MaOTCwxQr4J1ufZBUKwJ4ixNEajHTwka1hbCvjVD4LVAvCOoUfmymtpzUnbKMFWV/ qVjz4gPJProj7qfYpXBWZkZDnxeyPbBx+xyvaynuJgRz0nfRtvdVR21QQPpvJe793Jdg pLY/sp7JvNrJAOa/NGuXM3eeo4cXXBDdaRRklQ2mm/aafKXNZlRQyJ2s9b8E6R6oHSWw wc5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1UuVwz42/1zb8pkRzmqtvC8XJeQ4YPZiWNlZdoq4Gzg=; b=T8aXG1vWy6KpgZnwb4RH69WlXmNKOesfeUT5w8c+W1oiHtxPH9faIcQSpDAMeZDt4T +a28YWSRi1MTkX4K36gKBsj8HYUoSmrg7SEvi7R6njnUGCaWJ2bzhZoBg81S/WtBIVCb Kjc1yLx8O6TLrfCj/WyxasJAP4RunkfrLUxWdyB87LcFVTkx9okNt9vtaLlDRDHL0Cfu BCLXRXn68YIS/J1FX7h+mkyD/5KkSFv3WgM4qoZkYBsTcyBdcGjwun+62QUx8JAB/WS/ sKyJAkdxklqcOuzpdvQqufCbkYODwT8kAAa+099DSa5UROyc3VRri86qeRnnsoyo8Lof Picg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53358DPDNdjzGFfvKxFFcvNmyqzJUCw9Tu6YnK38WQDZkpJm7VGm Zd9H1aJ85Asp+6Rn53mta3C4PLMPHr8/OCgng3Xeqg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHRwUjWG+Q2wRAPvFll9IRUJEkEEhWur1WiEIp2GR3jv62RxtatMvCvgBMq4Y3FDehxz/784DHhzlcQPdrNns=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:249:: with SMTP id t9mr8556021pje.25.1611193302888; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:41:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaaaOLtRDnEzffk5+rW9bJmcU+4p8hX+FRKMLzpRKaCDfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:41:32 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn13Hvm=7VqKNnKO+55bz3Hs2n54uyzi19TCo4v8GS=LuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/onUUw0dYFftV8k-ac6DfGkN58Jk>
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 01:41:49 -0000

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

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.

-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
> >
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email