IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Extending a /64

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 08 November 2020 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 757323A0E67 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 13:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 YSoCS5vNaD1l for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 13:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (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 182FF3A0E66 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 13:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id i13so294776pgm.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Nov 2020 13:50:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XyW/WpbN9GJdwJCQe/KthW0XMECMikbFW6MFtTiwwVg=; b=MEXn/wf/JiAJ5aWZd5BdU1FpgvUONXrMqD1FoRgcuKJtKEY/0I7MOPLF3cSQWysM+4 aHh/0UEE9aAVsw+qdCLe7mCNcy/+KxTSdK0mtWb9Ts8wWuHvdCttZUb7PqAgqd3dUh0/ 65HfBcobk+uhpVlVeaiGmbShnoLk2GmKLl4cN7exg/lP92VMGa1k46JNnORATlUx62qR rGSDpAv0q+vwxQclP6A2p12p6maao+MiaBIzIeZ9HpjkmuNY6o0gCFanNGSnZFsuFg83 9rxk2+DtLgWseCKuiJF024QfQfzmEtDYZG/L8TV0yHax2z4d3Gap0QIWZizNN9hA3UIQ Fqiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; 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=XyW/WpbN9GJdwJCQe/KthW0XMECMikbFW6MFtTiwwVg=; b=WAoGaIDZiKx3/j38BUzp26kQ/CAOXC2k1JEAITDTg/wCoOEKK2CyTIn09GXyHmDK1m EO0Qp/Kh8jbitWWI4DIlTUKAlzCAZzJH9rLo+lA3Dw+BKV7S0I7siz7xRPf6Ayhgq/R6 fEBaKwW8tcpjaH9l0AtlJmldMMzgT7XJxhvzYpxfTGO4a/9FBEPB7eaPmQAGBahbVhLN aDKntVWq8VabtMZKx161g995BIURZi4xqr9A583iosqWe3TWdzS3dRApHExiinw7vv+y KwLaDgOzCen/BvUP+sxYnWtXixrqiJK4+NZmFlcWMiaWpw2Gm8MXW1LCfWF5T4bkegA2 DIpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QPMVEvRQaUMNOJGWSiEiZ2jFfCt1dKR83Sm3j4VLrfiXqfllL zgqOLmOWg9NnTml3J2knt+JkUtwfW4omYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBtnPNpgSIlhnc5zc3djOElgPUN8UySHuyRu+FV1ZyEoe9vVOiIycVuzb1/92LDcmicaxcRg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:6158:: with SMTP id o24mr10858828pgv.120.1604872223221; Sun, 08 Nov 2020 13:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p127sm9239459pfp.93.2020.11.08.13.50.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Nov 2020 13:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Extending a /64
To: otroan@employees.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <005ECBB3-088B-4363-BB53-8D4AD25CA3D2@employees.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <da13ad27-7493-c350-5a0b-38776f5e065e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 10:50:19 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <005ECBB3-088B-4363-BB53-8D4AD25CA3D2@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JhmWwVRaM3oLYBzkcaZP35CbrvQ>
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 21:50:25 -0000

You need

R-5: Preserve existing security solutions
R-6: Preserve existing privacy solutions
R-7: Preserve e2e transparency

Regards
   Brian

On 08-Nov-20 23:25, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> Starting a new thread.
> 
> A problem described in variable-slaac is:
> 
> "It should be possible to extend an end-user network that is only assigned a /64"
> 
> I believe that is a problem worth looking at.
> This problem is not only restricted to the mobile access case, think connecting a host with VMs to a link.
> 
> The address delegation to a site problem is intertwined with the autonomous networking problem of the site itself. The IETF solution is DHCPv6 PD + HNCP. The expectation of addressing of a network is that the addresses are long-lived.
> 
> There are many potentional solutions:
> 
> a1) ask the network operator for more address space.
> a2) change provider
> a3) introduce government regulation
> b1) steal the uplink /64 (64share)
> b2) steal multiple /64s from uplink
> c) overlay. use e.g. LISP to tunnel across the access ISP to connect to an ISP that support multi-homing and larger address space.
> d) MultiLink Subnet Routing. I.e. let a single /64 span multiple links. draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless, draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets
> e) NAT
> f) P2P Ethernet. Hosts are not on the same physical link, so let's stop pretending they are. A consequence of that is that links don't need subnets. Only assign addresses to hosts. draft-troan-6man-p2p-ethernet-00
> g) extend the /64 bit boundary. HNCP implementations do /80s I think (forces DHCP for address assignment)
> 
> 
> Requirements:
> R-1: Permissionless. Not require an action on the network operator
> R-2: Arbitrary topology
> R-3: Long-lived address assignments
> R-4: Support bad operational practice: flash renumbering / ephemeral addressing
> 
> 
> Is there interest to work on this problem?
> If so, suggestions for next steps?
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole (without any particular hat on)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email