IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CE112006E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 mxnojytAhhAA for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2159120004 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD5171; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:53:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1559256826; bh=ppGXpOO/J5vzl7bkUGY 1d1keWMU/pApSF1qL9xEF71Q=; b=VK4u8ckkCjRYHjZWQkfa7lOI0jEc47fdMe0 DIc04orXNaL0Xvkje4NXdrUIf1lgbZ/bRo4KspQlPHp1q/Oo9Qfhrtj005pF7Tr4 tpgN+Ny/UF9SqWMAVjBQhw0yZ8bRcDmsuD3k3ywZZn6t8aZEbaI1wTnubUqIlnyS OFjLwRL0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id E4luO_NX9n9j; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:53:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:3cac:a6d:c809:5674] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:3cac:a6d:c809:5674]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55A656F; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:53:45 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <AF1967FC-526D-47FB-98BE-F9B949F26796@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2C09117B-E8F5-4E0B-94C8-5602E1C28755"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 00:53:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <632BE7EC-26A6-44E9-9CCD-F0AE143D4256@fugue.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <7A9560FC-0393-45DF-8389-B868455AC6DD@fugue.com> <20190530005734.7d2alod2zoaemmhc@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <D6E27B45-437F-45BE-A305-47DD460BCE02@fugue.com> <26144.1559226966@localhost> <1DD451A7-D898-4105-974C-53776A3DA9F2@fugue.com> <20190530152902.l2nmyhadr4e4kt7x@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0FF19D6D-1A45-41EF-BE34-CC35B5E51E1E@steffann.nl> <D91629F6-73AC-4A80-80EF-16644F73DA36@fugue.com> <701687d4-842c-6a16-3c97-349125324e3f@gmail.com> <D648647D-60E1-4DCE-B0BE-11002E0AE5A4@fugue.com> <20190530220838.g2hshonsjxmfnd55@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <632BE7EC-26A6-44E9-9CCD-F0AE143D4256@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4Ni8OShgLwTmPgJKdRZpoQBWrcE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:55 -0000

Hi Ted,

>> To me, a non-fuzzy boundary is one where you do something like ACL on
>> a set of links completely isolating some area of the network. Fuzzy
>> could vbe absence of default route causing ULA to stop. Not sure if
>> these are good examples of any actual definition, but both ae possible with
>> ULA.
>> 
>> I'd mostly be concerned about non-fuzzy boundaries wrt. security,
>> so not sure if i'd always want to avoid non-fuzzy boundaries.
> 
> The question is, what’s different about the proposed application versus typical ULA usage?

I like the scope aspect of Mark's draft. ULA is always organisation or site scoped, and should be filtered as such. Anycast that have a different scope should have different boundaries. Anycast addresses that have ISP scope can cross from the customer's network to the ISP's network, while there should be a boundary between that customer's ULA addresses and that ISP's ULA addresses (let's assume they both use ULA for this example).

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email