IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 C559712704A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Ex23UrTfwrLq for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5483D1242F7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 21:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.185] (unknown [105.50.131.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ABEF827A2; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 06:19:52 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAO42Z2ziUZnK+n2f9N_Xvb5TZBppApXgNSmDsRLxaT1_taLvFw@mail.gmail.com> <59392678.1080000@foobar.org> <CAO42Z2ztuFW_jfATLS8e47ANM7_WaCr1GbfLzc_=-79ibHtrsg@mail.gmail.com> <m1dIveo-0000EPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <f706ae31-f5f9-f0f9-ff5c-4e9e25ff56c8@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 07:13:36 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m1dIveo-0000EPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/507rpLwHI1nauw5bxD3xlc6E6Gc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 04:19:39 -0000

On 06/08/2017 02:31 PM, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Next you'll say that stripes have no value to zebras and camouflage
>> has no value to armies.
> 
> I find this a bizar discussion. We already have plenty of options for providing
> nodes with addresses that have lots of randomness.
> 
> Some operators don't care about that feature and would like to be able to use
> those bits elsewhere.
> 
> So if you want to make it hard to discover a node, assign a /64 to a link and
> use put a random value in the remaining bits.
> 
> That should not proclude other people from using /120 prefixes and numbering 
> nodes 1, 2, 3.

+1


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email