IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 9226 on Bioctal: Hexadecimal 2.0

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 03 April 2022 03:38 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 C49E93A19B5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 20:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ipqf3805fKyr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 20:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (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 06EF23A19B3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2022 20:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id bx24-20020a17090af49800b001c6872a9e4eso5966774pjb.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Apr 2022 20:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pAz5V7kDQthKn0fZ1qbyJWBD0mfvaQIJRE8tSuzutcc=; b=oAu9Yqr8i4jjeQQwfl4uLyncoyyqYFK9JNOL3vmsed+0dyNIX1Qzdz2QB5TcajSJz4 1QM6EPUL0MH7c6TkCdL26LwdQTDPI3795XHuN+tnrgIlC7VO7x14C8F9BKzWFgsKRRjz h2f7CRXH08OVoleY9qPkryoBvYFYjD3xmxW33H9l1rgyAhH2BXyQz4Mzb+SzEOqwkqqT DD6nQbbVjiz9aRD+zdRzlfFIIOYwSWH+solzuHcAN3Fy7Niv3rPaJ7M+VMdXZXwplIqY zr80ExtjUPPdTqYzvIpYUptaofgYnFKCh2WeHy5SyQiwvrw8HS9NrPCfce6lYheY5kNr 9uEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; 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=pAz5V7kDQthKn0fZ1qbyJWBD0mfvaQIJRE8tSuzutcc=; b=mCbFcD8b1mOiRiXEQQlfFkargbFSotjbjl5T81rxPO9kIdclgZNh+VgM2O9mbSRK7l i35Qly8+HaPBdlPnWWtli1Cn5jn6PstP/sRALVi59+6XQdeflJpA+pxvOaZVl6rpgy0j PDwqUxHdpMKnkhKLFMiVamix1CWDwFRMqqWDG1I6EYi0c7D1o0WKgWnZ9FBmtp1/Zsc+ 6W7wLKzrbtMB2sQrqbY6bN2hQavJJv4j97mZjBZ0K8cd0fja0IslCMQJ547SSRu1LqpQ DuPGTzSk3CCe+neLSl6MSuUek5orQaC6FhW4XyIrBSfKN2QoFtQAaHPpAhz4YEEgUZDC mmQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533e/31nW+abIkeA1R5Whjn1Op2TS+XXZQgiqDjLJcojhtq3nUkV psams+Q15+j28ZAhV5BlIrktJ2YK53MRHg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwSjzp8CMRczGjMaaYWEbsAW+lAYULc3zbBiZj3ytgqZOjfTWhnBVj8YktCarIYxvJpDYjaeg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4f4d:b0:1c7:5324:c6a0 with SMTP id pj13-20020a17090b4f4d00b001c75324c6a0mr19927470pjb.160.1648957132691; Sat, 02 Apr 2022 20:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1005:b501:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rj13-20020a17090b3e8d00b001c77bc09541sm17190642pjb.51.2022.04.02.20.38.51 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Apr 2022 20:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: RFC 9226 on Bioctal: Hexadecimal 2.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20220401212132.2C8676AAD1@rfcpa.amsl.com> <651.1648945260@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24f08b06-8767-587d-6327-21706da044a9@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 15:38:48 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <651.1648945260@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/symgMPqwyk8l9bTeyluocghgrM0>
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: Sun, 03 Apr 2022 03:38:59 -0000

On 03-Apr-22 12:21, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> I wish that more RFCs had such well thought out Security Considerations.

They are incomplete. There is a whole world of hurt if one considers
IPv6 addresses. What are we to make of a prefix like 2cf2::/16 ?
If we assume it's bioctal, it is really 28c2::/16 in hex. But if
we assume it's hexadecimal, it's really 2cf2::/16.

That sort of confusion between IP prefixes could be quite an
operational problem and lead to all kinds of exposures. It means
that auto-detection of bioctal vs hex is generally impossible.

It's also hard to perceive vbc0::1234 as a link local address.

However, in the interests of widespread community consideration
of this problem, I have added support of bioctal to my little
IP address checking program. Sorry to be a day or two late.

https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/addrPropsO.py

    Brian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email