Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> Thu, 11 December 2014 00:39 UTC
Return-Path: <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524961A1BE1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:39:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.921
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.921 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL=2.899, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 tpQDV8r7_YEi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9988A1A1B4B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id wo20so624170obc.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:39:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=rozjRGq8SZAOwbsHIHMJlQZ8kkPPQ6bHa4lNWK8chLU=; b=D/eFKtqHHv0uXPHZdmKb4+k6lrtFt3n1/VkI2kLyTTfZXNIjYbGQvTOmUzx9N5+dSy rYzZ3gyzvwzAr9WR+JvMF6JDRkrUCBZfP4d/EBP1G3rCuQlfmXMzk4Qg0UPk1Cy9OIu2 7oV4AWRLpgvEt1wICyzMJpxKVTSnDmmvoUk1aLDA1uZ9lbsqUriY351sNxm0X6aJr33s /XfN6K8UJe8MCgOBmvbKEhibLD8l/NHrDIaMLFweiwvWVK19cqREBWa3F7ZWxzsofMqp Hguhzpeq1OISuRj0kT4FCkQPOXJxMJ18N6XSyN/8gxzp3Suk40giX74B+ssS1qoRXA78 vtBQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.134.20 with SMTP id pg20mr4612424oeb.36.1418258353820; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.170.138 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:39:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net> <D0AE1053.7AA8A%Lee@asgard.org> <AF1B977B-75D4-4AF2-B231-300AF2429317@nominum.com> <CAMm+Lwji9860CKaJB_9xi3ztiVUtP3NZ8AgO1wZAVTKVWW76Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:39:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CADC+-gR+sFUELOrdfVj5e3hW-KZoftotbhvEwF6aotZvq5wOkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b472948611cdd0509e6018c"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yvUqeDseUoJO2YXj7sLeq0ZXMDc
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Dec 2014 00:39:16 -0000
This part scares the hell out of me: "...Customers could, for example, receive an initial fixed port range, defined by the operator, and dynamically request additional blocks, depending on their contract. ..." What about legacy software that decides what port it is going to use? Well their packets go to the wrong hardware? Seems a BIG security hold to me. - Doug Royer DouglasRoyer@gmail.com (714)989-6135 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com > wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote: >> > My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care about >> IPv4 >> > anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF. >> >> This is why I was so surprised by the controversy. Sigh >> > > Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the best > way to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6 'better' > and to sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage. > > So we had the campaign against NAT, even though it was obviously > benefiting people economically. With 80 nodes on my internal net, I would > be paying several thousand dollars a year to have static IPs for each (not > to mention depriving others of Internet access). In fact my ISP now > requires me to run NAT. > > > In hindsight 32 bits was exactly the wrong size. If IPv4 had been 16 bits > we would have run out of address space long, long ago when the cost of > transition was not so prohibitive - there would only be 65K nodes to > change(!). > > The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old > strategy. Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the > same so that the transition cost is minimal. >
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Curran
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Cridland
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… l.wood
- IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 … Dave Crocker
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Eggert, Lars
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Levine
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… James Woodyatt
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John R Levine
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Douglas Otis
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant