IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 B586F12DFDB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 0RNjmPvJWk2p for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (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 2E91C12EA8C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id p62so15609226vkp.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mlE99fXxFPLxClYl91abXOCggsLsCpgRXVYumLFzmrk=; b=Q0JTPtup/EJE4nGKkSV+Lc9MDpia11o9RzyBfVbo9P+ikOg5ZP1weT1fKU136ywEXA 7eTlr2162ScLbBPgEM5ANYbey1EHFMkIox/ZpOWhfTSGYhgiKZEkfUwKIY4s1+Wvkmsm miXB3UNV5/dKockDD1xRmtUqVv5FpcE+Jn9XJ9T10cv911ErRi0ndGB5uSvNc5XugJVM 7+hbysIyFpfL93+ZYX42xzhHsdYaQmhFntS5rgzcGTVVy2dI8aQThEmctdZLb7y3Ouye vHxRNWJfDdayGf83D85D2zd6WjmyBh3ulzymh5i+tOYeuhd0KIrph36LwQukL68nqvGb OLCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mlE99fXxFPLxClYl91abXOCggsLsCpgRXVYumLFzmrk=; b=CCsbgzo3AnaJYHTs85S1oAL4QXxcp4LQRrAwuK+Wg7eZa2SdA4Xr2AbGLeVBu+GIcF b+KkGEE1knv9xRT3uUE3Kd7FXln5HjgwKm7rjyNzEuviu6e8AZkvjzYRKiIIiKEBvYv0 5GxVcY3dII4DnAC+vC8CKoczhZABya/M+byIsEBjs0itdkaI5eVGLln+ETFbNYN8/XVU Y51SlxdxsoOutzp++9rWqLn6QxJx1UROkVnd7AaUCC86X7lMEpSsn7zR4VSDu1cZwt/c /U7ChPLy6k3X1B8sbZs0cdYLIltta085VptN3Y02dg5lKaVretcF2nLtBt1QC3Ytel80 eJug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcC+Wsia5tYWp7LZHVkJqo7myJl2zff5EzBHMqKmqOgB0274pFLr XR0khR9cJ1MbzqOkivUkugiCzgYhFtDc
X-Received: by 10.31.129.17 with SMTP id c17mr12088050vkd.36.1496920628288; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.92.67 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <59392678.1080000@foobar.org>
References: <CAO42Z2ziUZnK+n2f9N_Xvb5TZBppApXgNSmDsRLxaT1_taLvFw@mail.gmail.com> <59392678.1080000@foobar.org>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:16:37 +1000
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2ztuFW_jfATLS8e47ANM7_WaCr1GbfLzc_=-79ibHtrsg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Giving up security & privacy when manually configuring addresses - rfc4291bis text (Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00)
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O9olW-Epotn5wPWOARvyMDkRDQE>
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: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 11:17:12 -0000

On 8 June 2017 at 20:27, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
>> Large addresses can be of value in infrastructure addressing too. If a
>> network operator wants to significantly mitigate if not prevent an
>> attack such as a BGP listener TCP SYN attack from the Internet, they
>> can hide the router's interface address somewhere inside a /64 so that
>> the attacker can't find it via unsolicited inbound probing.
>
> this is a non argument and obscure addresses are of no value to network
> operators:
>

Next you'll say that stripes have no value to zebras and camouflage
has no value to armies.


> 1. most routers will answer traceroute probes, so it's trivial to find
> out the address of a bgp-enabled router.
>
> 2. if you are serious about protecting infrastructure, you install
> infrastructure ACLs which actually fix the problem.
>
> Nick
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email