Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sat, 14 January 2017 06:37 UTC
Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 9793E1294D6; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 KpiCwNfpQVNI; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (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 4B223129412; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id x75so46689429vke.2; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pUT6QvioyyNww5EhWv2PJc9RZsRP1bvtGbAxNhFd3L4=; b=IvcL4rxvsCyDGtH81/4Mdf9qSqOwri6UYeQ3sPeD9zupwhRQLnI7Vj6h/PFi/2NkYT mYFuId8e8X8B3S4+B1URBh4H+hfZjGhKP/PUFk4jbgFQTCx/8Klmri+Ze54Xc0g6fPrL 0nPrLWAZEBhJqxEGMCd20bWN22vYud7E7YPC1WvsiIViXBggqoacLoWIH4Gh0yM5Ln1U tDWdytAVS/GjOmFLVScLjM3uZSajCr2JUQfWn02zAow5eFFP4HOuDlX/rIRJf4Y6NM3K kTXaIJKBfIiD2E8/b2hFCDfqrMB/Q8qgjXTWOvFp0Ght2xkupBjsjAowGtgwyXP4ceO4 K1RQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pUT6QvioyyNww5EhWv2PJc9RZsRP1bvtGbAxNhFd3L4=; b=b+v0aWKVFSLD6Qts3XpSoroTMMksNwKqpzaltk9mo0qPJiWtLFu/y3uIPesm479URE tglrDnOvvIIkXlAQKeS1y4e8+3F+Lrkw3v0fQ9A0eVf86okGGtJAW0zuSaDjKLKgRpYw 1QerW9JRjjJJADxb445q3KupEO2oh61C+Na1d6wbWp032l2zTgWfWB3oxuGQZXbugWPF 5m+aD59GJFT8QqJPtR8JZgRAlejGQLe0l1m79E/NkYFDNtC4AWu+QblgOpULbEDkPjbU jLyb5tXXYoeAzPTRnoewB5Sf4uJzoSzX0v+BB6q/z3WCUzoWDVilptHu5Uj4mzKvUTqB 9GdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJqZa3/gBIYCMmFCwPy/rbfK8ElU5WPkdqmqvYWvxT0h2ewu/axgGtzhQypVQ5A7vWQhwDE5Gq2Elvinw==
X-Received: by 10.31.79.132 with SMTP id d126mr11318853vkb.165.1484375844234; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.2.235 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.176.2.235 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fukqbbwv.wl-randy@psg.com> <F6953234-3F85-4E28-9861-433ADD01A490@gmail.com> <m2wpdzhncn.wl-randy@psg.com> <82245ef2-cd34-9bd6-c04e-f262e285f983@gmail.com> <m2d1frhjfn.wl-randy@psg.com> <18e6e13c-e605-48ff-4906-2d5531624d64@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1cvZ8Y3+bHeML=Xwqr+YgDspZGnZi=jqQj4qe2kMc4zw@mail.gmail.com> <m2lguffnco.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:37:23 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dd4cce8a94b0546082efe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/w7sVMCrUTihNCrAo_1dl9z_Im60>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, int-dir@ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis.all@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 06:37:27 -0000
On 14 Jan. 2017 15:36, "David Farmer" <farmer@umn.edu> wrote: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > .... > > > Which is exactly why we have so far only delegated 1/8 of the > IPv6 address space for global unicast allocation, leaving a *lot* > of space for fixing our mistakes. Moving away from /64 as the > recommended subnet size might, or might not, prove to be necessary in > the long term future. That's why the point about routing being > classless is fundamental. I do think we need to be a bit more > precise on this point in 4291bis. > > Brian > Exactly, /64 is the RECOMMENDED subnet size, or a SHOULD from RFC2119, and I'm fine with that, but that's not what the following says. For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long. Background on the 64 bit boundary in IPv6 addresses can be found in [RFC7421 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421>]. It says REQUIRED, that is a MUST from RFC2119, and I believe it to be an Imperative as discussed in section 6 of RFC2119. I'm fine with /64, /127 and /128 as the RECOMMENDED subnet sizes, I support that and believe it to be the consensus of the IETF. Maybe even explicitly noting /65 through /126 are NOT RECOMMENDED subnet sizes, and not support by SLACC. But it is not correct to say the /64 is REQUIRED. I don't think /127s should really be recommended either. They don't guarantee that the ping pong problem is solved, because it depends on both ends being configured with the /127 prefix length by the operator or operators at each end if the link. There is no protocol requirement that both ends of a link have the same prefix and prefix length, nor is there any protocol checking of that condition. For example, if an ISP configures a /127 on their end of the customer's link, but the customer just configures a default route on their end over the link, it is a legitimate configuration by the protocols, Internet access will work (so the customer might assume the link is configured correctly), and yet the link is vulnerable to a ping pong attach despite it "having" a /127 prefix. So it is a mitigation, however it relies on the operator or operators being disciplined about the configuration, and comes at the cost of other things that may be useful if a 64 bit IID was available e.g. protect against discovery of link addresses via unsolicited inbound probing if the IIDs are random (which may include static configuration of an offline generated random 64 bit IID). Regards, Mark. I also believe RFC7608 supports this conclusion. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952> =============================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian Haberman
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Bob Hinden
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Punana Lebo
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian Haberman
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Bob Hinden
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Bob Hinden
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Bob Hinden
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 David Farmer
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 heasley
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Suresh Krishnan
- AW: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Karsten Thomann
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 sthaug
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Randy Bush
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: AW: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Fernando Gont
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Fernando Gont
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 heasley
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Mark Smith
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Fernando Gont
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 John C Klensin
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 David Farmer
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Mark Smith
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06 Lorenzo Colitti