IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why /64

Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch> Mon, 28 October 2013 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jeroen@massar.ch>
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 75E1111E822F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7lM6djSTKwQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [78.47.209.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D7911E821E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kami.ch.unfix.org (kami.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:1620:f42:99:7256:81ff:fea5:2925]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D528801C2A2; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:24:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:24:58 +0100
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch>
Organization: Massar
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
Subject: Re: Why /64
References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|9f43bef2fe7433173858819bd0eeee2dp9OKUJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr0q2dY041CMarFfTZZx6=qHC-eJ+74qgiHP-dt7+ga7yg@mail.gmail.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org>
In-Reply-To: <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:25:33 -0000

On 2013-10-27 16:53, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> On 10/27/2013 02:26 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> allows privacy,
>>
>> IMHO big nonsense. The company (amongst many others!) you work for uses
>> amongst others cookies to track their people, and if they really bother
>> could even use natural language structure, search query types, and other
>> behavior for breaking this 'privacy'. Also note that even if the last
>> 64bits are random, your company should be more than able to say "oh,
>> there are typically X users in there, it likely is Y"...
> 
> Then why deprecate EUI-64?

I did not state anything like that. I have only raised concern about
stating that "IPv6 privacy addresses" are a real thing.

I am pro /64 per link and a /48 for Enterprise and at least /56 for
Home-user sites. (/60 is too tiny and not flexible enough)

Greets,
 Jeroen

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status