IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com> Sat, 15 July 2017 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.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 132AB131BAF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:39:46 -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] 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 TPZMTEfpHfJ2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E9D131BAC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #130) id m1dWNIL-0000FpC; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:39:41 +0200
Message-Id: <m1dWNIL-0000FpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
From: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b7900FA3D@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2+Si_tzNF8p6ASf4=StgFSX9Gm3TEj9iiqdE2gHQaNmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau03r_CKW53kegaLa=F_R_RG4cWaCT1j6idrqPm9UuN03A@mail.gmail.com> <5963BF27.1050300@foobar.org> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dVbRc-0000GQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b6da9e67-1f4e-8900-5a3b-575d0c 6fd2fd@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:31:53 +1200 ." <b6da9e67-1f4e-8900-5a3b-575d0c6fd2fd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:39:39 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/NpLVoQLJQSNhd40EswJGT1xlB8M>
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 13:39:46 -0000

>This is backwards. The goals of pseudo-random IIDs are to reduce the
>probability that scanning attacks find hosts, and to reduce the risk
>of IIDs being used to breach privacy.
>
>If these goals are met, the collision probability will in any case
>be low, so DAD failure will be exceedingly rare.

I completely disagree. A collision is fatal. We are nowhere near transparently
handling all collisions. At best we can hope that DAD can make one node
continue unaffected.

In contrast, people have been scanning my IPv4 ranges for the past 20 years
or so. That may be annoying. That may amplify attacks opportunities. But
in it self it is not fatal.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email