IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

"Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 21 February 2019 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.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 CF243131288; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 byRRVw3gVnel; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5887131271; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x1LLrn04000836; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:53:49 -0500
Received: from XCH16-01-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-01-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.5]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x1LLrcZn031665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:53:38 -0500
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.39) by XCH16-01-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:53:37 -0800
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323]) by XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323%4]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.014; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:53:37 -0800
From: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios
Thread-Index: AQHUyRB17V+FnESOAEi8Djm3PcxDpKXpHwZQgACcI4D//4RNUIAAoKWAgACD6gCAAOwQAP//fLQw
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:53:37 +0000
Message-ID: <a73818d31db7422b99a524bc431b00ed@boeing.com>
References: <6D78F4B2-A30D-4562-AC21-E4D3DE019D90@consulintel.es> <B6E2EC33-EEAF-40D0-AFCC-BDAFA9134ACD@consulintel.es> <20190220113603.GK71606@Space.Net> <28fbc2c305c640c9afb3704050f6e8d7@boeing.com> <20190220213107.GS71606@Space.Net> <019c552eb1624d348641d6930829fd1f@boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr0HBG+rhyFWg9zh0t3mW486Mjx9umjn+CRqAZg4z9r0dg@mail.gmail.com> <20190221073530.GT71606@Space.Net> <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2wmB2W52b4MZ2h9sW5E9cQKm-HRjyf--q8C26jezS7LXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.115.204.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: EB9BDEB75AF89DC6719C652833DF542621F9A6A51592034E08CF686329790DB02000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/hH4USPILxCpYd3UBwMn2o1X7G9o>
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:54:00 -0000

From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> 

> That's because applications that would be best performing, most robust and more secure with a peer-to-peer communications model are forced to adopt an absolute client-server model (where the server is a much more likely performance bottleneck, the server becomes a SPOF for all clients using it at the time, and the server is a natural interception point for a malicious server operator).

Even if it's only the prefix that changes? I don’t get that. Peer to peer can be made to work there too. I agree if you're talking about NAPT, though. Those basic NAT firewalls I alluded to previously support peer-peer quite nicely.

Bert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email